CC SR 20211116 05 - Ladera Linda Financing Options
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to proceed with filing the financing application for the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
(1) Review the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendation to finance up to $6
million of the total cost of the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project
with Lease Revenue Obligations from the Bank of the West (BOW);
(2) If deemed acceptable, direct Staff to file an application with BOW at a loan amount
of up to $6 million at a 10-year term;
(3) Authorize the City Council Facilities Subcommittee and City Manager, or his
designee, to select a City asset to be used as collateral with BOW;
(4) Authorize the Mayor to the sign the Lease Revenue Obligations agreement with
BOW in a form approved by the City Attorney; and,
(5) Authorize Staff to charge all related costs for the application process to the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding allocated to the Ladera Linda Park and
Community Center Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: The filing of an application with BOW will result in a City expenditure
of an amount not to exceed $93,500.
Amount Budgeted: $3,953,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 333-400-various account
(ARPA Fund – Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project)
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. October 6, 2021, BOW Proposal (page A-1)
B. November 4, 2021, Finance Advisory Committee staff report (page B-1)
C. May 18, 2021, City Council staff report (page C-1)
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
fl\,
4
BACKGROUND:
On May 18, 2021, the City Council approved the recommendations from Staff and the
Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) on the delivery method and financing options for the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project, as summarized below:
• Use up to 50% of the ARPA funding for the project.
• Use any available funds from Quimby Fund for the project.
• A 50/50 split between financing with the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (iBank) and the Capital Infrastructure Project (CIP) Fund.
o The City Council directed Staff to proceed with step 1 of the iBank process
to obtain pre-qualification.
• Create a framework to replenish the CIP Fund with:
o Private funding campaign
o Interest earnings
o General Fund surplus
On June 14, Staff submitted the financial reports, including necessary questionnaires, to
iBank, initiating the pre-qualification process.
On September 7, the City was pre-qualified and received an invitation from iBank to
formally apply at an updated preliminary interest rate of 2.2% for a 10-year loan term or
2.3% for a 15-year loan term with a 0.30% annual fee for both terms on an estimated $5.5
million loan. This is slightly lower than the original interest rate of 2.5% on both the 10-
year and 15-year loan.
During the pre-qualification process with iBank, Preferred Bank contacted the City
expressing interest in assisting the City with the financing for the Project. After a brief
discussion with the bank representative, Preferred Bank could not match the initial quote
of 2.5% from iBank.
Subsequently, Staff took this opportunity and reached out to BOW, the City’s operating
bank, to see if it has a financing program that the City could consider. After several phone
conversations and email exchanges with BOW, Staff believed that there is an
advantageous opportunity for the City to consider financing the project with BOW.
On July 20, Staff met with the FAC Subcommittee, consisting of Chair Lewis, Member
MacAllister, and Member Yourman, to review financing options for project including the
new opportunity with BOW. The Subcommittee recommended that this information be
discussed with the FAC at its upcoming public meeting.
On August 24 and September 9, Staff presented information to the FAC comparing the
financing terms between iBank and BOW. At the conclusion of both meetings, FAC
recommended continuing this item to allow the FAC Subcommittee to further evaluate the
financing options by meeting with the representative from BOW.
2
On September 23, Staff and the FAC Subcommittee met with Ted Neu from BOW to
further discuss its financing process, and the terms and conditions of the loan.
Additionally, Staff met with the Facilities Subcommittee on October 28 to update the
subcommittee on iBank and BOW proposal, and based on the information presented, the
Subcommittee expressed an interest in pursuing project financing with BOW. Staff has
also reached out to the City Attorney’s office to seek its legal assistance in the transaction
with reviewing the financing documents. Anita Luck, a partner with Aleshire & Wynder,
reviewed the proposal from BOW and expressed no concern with the proposal. Ms. Luck
confirmed the need to have an outside financing authority to move forward with the
transaction with BOW.
DISCUSSION:
As a result of discussion between the City and BOW, on October 6, Staff received a formal
proposal from BOW to finance a portion of the project with Lease Revenue Obligations
(Attachment A) for both a 10-year and 15-year loan term at $5.5 million. Table 1 below
compares the loan terms between iBank and BOW:
Table 1: Summary of the Financing Terms
On November 4, Staff returned to the FAC to review the proposal from BOW including
previous discussions between the FAC Subcommittee and BOW that occurred since the
last FAC meeting. Based on the information reviewed that evening, FAC unanimously
agreed to forward a recommendation to the City Council to consider financing up to $6
million (increased from the original discussion of $5.5 million) with BOW at a 10-year term
for the financing of the project, soliciting services from a Municipal Financing Authority,
and reallocating any unspent ARPA funds to the project.
iBank BOW
Loan Amount $5.5 million $5.5 million
Term 10 or 15 years 10 or 15 years
Interest Rate
2.3% for 15 years
2.2% for 10 years
1.9% for 15 years
1.7% for 10 years
Estimated Annual
Fees
0.3%
$121,000 for 15 years
$76,000 for 10 years $0
Estimated One-time
Costs $0
BOW fees $20,000
City Legal fees $50,000
Municipal Financing Authority $3,500
Financial Advisor $20,000
Estimated Interest
$1.1 million for 15 years
$0.7 million for 10 years
$0.8 million for 15 years
$0.5 million for 10 years
3
FAC supports financing the project with BOW for the following reasons:
• Up to $6 million:
The financing of $5.5 million, approved by the City Council on May 18, was
calculated based on a $15.7 million project cost estimate. Since then, the estimate
has increased by several hundred thousand dollars based on project changes
approved by the City Council. FAC now feels that it is prudent to increase the
financing up to $6 million to support these changes and to be more flexible.
• Lower Costs:
Both banks offered a 10- and 15-year term but in order to maximize the savings,
FAC recommended a 10-year term and staff concurred. The City could potentially
have a net saving of approximately $182,000 to $327,000 depending on the length
of the loan term. The net saving is calculated based on the interest savings and
annual fees between iBank and BOW less the one -time costs.
• Prepayment Option:
BOW offers no penalty for prepayment on the loan while the City is responsible for
the full interest cost with iBank even if the City decided to pay off the loan early.
• Impact on Staff:
The administrative support required on the loan with iBank and the application
process will be burdensome to Staff. With BOW, the City receives full funding after
the loan closes. With iBank, Staff will have to submit invoices for the actual
expenses incurred to draw down the funds.
• Relationship Building:
FAC supports the opportunity to continue building a relationship with BOW. BOW
has been providing general banking services to the City, and through this
relationship the City received competitive financing terms and conditions, as
confirmed by the City’s financial advisor. Therefore, continuing to strengthen the
relationship will only create more advantageous opportunities for the City and the
bank in the future.
FAC supported soliciting services from a Municipal Financing Authority rather than
forming its own Financing Authority based on the cost and benefit analysis. The cost of
forming the Finance Authority ranges between $15,000 and $25,000. The monetary
annual maintenance includes an annual filing which is approximately between $500 and
$1,000 and an audit of approximately $5,000 based on the current cost of the
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) annual audit fee.
The cost to rent a Finance Authority is based on the size of the loan and is a one-time
cost with no annual maintenance required , as summarized below:
4
• Under $1 million: $2,500
• $1 - $10 million: $3,500
• Over $10 million: $4,500
FAC also recommends that the City Council consider reallocating any unspent or savings
from the ARPA funding to the project during the annual status report of the ARPA
spending plan. The additional funds allocated to this project will help reduce the use of
the CIP Fund.
FAC deferred the discussion on the priority usage of the various funding sources for the
project to a later date for additional information such as the final terms and conditions of
the loan with BOW and the construction schedule.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Municipal Financing Authority
There is no specific statute that says the City must have a Municipal Financing Authority
in order to issue debt that is repayable from the City’s General Fund and/or the CIP Fund.
However, Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution prohibits cities (including
chartered cities), counties, and school districts from entering into indebtedness or liability
that in any year exceeds the income and revenue provided for such year unless the local
agency first obtains two-thirds voter approval for the obligation. Therefore, the Municipal
Financing Authority provides the City with an exception to the issue debt.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
On October 5, 2021, the City Council approved allocating $3,953,000 of the City’s ARPA
funding to the project. This is approximately 40% of the $9.9 million of ARPA funding
allocated to the City. The full $3.9 million has been appropriated for FY 2021-22.
CONCLUSION:
FAC, as well as Staff, recommends that the City Council consider the revision to the
financing of the project by changing the financing entity from the iBank to BOW with the
maximum loan amount of $6 million. The City will incur some one-time costs changing
from iBank to BOW, however, the savings in interest and the option to prepay the debt
outweigh the one-time costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the recommendations discussed above, the following alternative actions are
available for the City Council’s consideration:
5
1. Direct Staff to apply to both the iBank and BOW and bring back the final terms and
conditions from both entities for City Council consideration.
2. Recommend alternate financing options.
3. Take no action on the financing and use the CIP Fund reserve for the project.
6
Bank of the West Proposal
To
Up to $5,500,000
2021 Lease Revenue Obligations
October 6, 2021
A-1
RI-\NCHO !¾..OS VERDES
October 6, 2021
Ms. Trang Nguyen
Director of Finance
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
tguyen@rpvca.gov
Re: City of Ranch Palos Verdes 2021 Lease Revenue Obligations
Dear Trang:
Bank of the West (the “Bank”) is pleased to present our proposal to provide a tax-exempt term
loan (the “Term Loan”) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the completion of a new city-
owned community center (“Ladera Linda Community Center and Park”) in an amount up to $5.5
million.
Bank of the West is a member of BNP Paribas Group, one of the largest and healthiest banks in
the world. We are a financially sound, California State-Chartered bank and California State
approved depository bank, headquartered in San Francisco.
The Bank’s Public Finance Department is a major provider of credit facilities in the form of
letters of credit, private placements, direct purchase facilities, lines of credit, funded loans and
leases to municipal borrowers. Our team has a combined forty years of experience in providing
these facilities to local government agencies.
We have provided approximately $300 million in credit facilities to municipal borrowers over
the last 12 months, including a $110 million line of credit to back the San Diego County Water
Authority’s commercial paper program and a $100 million line to back Los Angeles County
Department of Water and Power’s bonds. We have provided private placements to numerous
municipal borrowers including the City of Pittsburg, Stanislaus County, Town of Windsor,
Novato Fire Protection District, and Madera County.
Bank of the West is pleased to be the provider of full-service banking to the City and we
appreciate this opportunity to support the City’s financing needs.
A-2
Sincerely,
Christine Armani-Dawood Matthew Kirschenman
Director Vice President
Public Finance Division Government Banking Division
A-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
$5,500,000
2021 Lease Revenue Obligations
The proposed terms and conditions are provided for discussion purposes only and do not constitute
an offer, agreement, or commitment to lend by Bank of the West (“Lender”). The actual terms and
conditions upon which Bank of the West might extend credit to the Borrower are subject to satisfactory
completion of due diligence, internal credit approval, satisfactory documentation and other such terms
and conditions as determined solely by Bank of the West.
Lender: Bank of the West (the “Bank”)
Borrower: City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the “City”)
Purpose and Structure: A term loan to the City (the “Term Loan”) to
provide funds for a portion of the costs
associated with the construction of a new City-
owned community center, the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park project. The
project includes the demolition of five existing
buildings, and construction of a new
Community Center, outdoor tiered seating, a
parking lot and children’s playground.
The Term Loan will be structured as a lease-
leaseback between the City and the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Financing Authority,
subject to abatement. The lease payments owed
by the City to the Financing Authority and
payable from the City’s General Fund revenues
and the Financing Authority’s right, title and
interest in the Site Lease and the Lease
Agreement will be assigned to the Bank. The
Lease Agreement will contain customary
insurance provisions regarding the Leased
Property, including rental interruption
insurance, casualty insurance and title
insurance, and covenants to repair and rebuild
and apply net proceeds.
Term: The Bank is offering the following:
(1) A 10-year Lease/Term Loan with level
principal amortization and semi-annual interest
payments.
A-4
(2) A 15-year Lease/Term Loan with level
principal amortization and semi-annual interest
payments.
Repayment Source: The Lease Payments and any Additional Rental
Payments due to the Bank will be payable from
the General Fund of the City pursuant to the
terms of the Lease Agreement. The Lease
Payments and any Additional Rental Payments
are payable from the City’s General Fund and
any other legally available funds. The Lease
Payments and Additional Rental Payments are
payable by the City for and in consideration of
the right of the use and occupancy of, and the
continued quiet use and enjoyment of the
Leased Property. The City covenants to take all
actions required to include the Lease Payments
and Additional Rental Payments in each of its
budgets during the Term of the Lease
Agreement and to make the necessary
appropriations for all Lease Payments and
Additional Rental Payments. The foregoing
covenant of the City contained constitutes a
duty imposed by law. Lease Payments are
subject to abatement in each fiscal year.
Leased Property: The “Leased Property” has yet to be determined
by the City; however, it is expected to be an
essential asset owned by the City which is
acceptable to the Bank. In addition, the Leased
Property shall have an appraised value
(including land value), and sufficiently clear
title, which is acceptable to the Bank and a fair
market rental value which is sufficient in the
opinion of Special Counsel to support the Term
Loan described herein..
Principal Amortization: Annual (level) principal amortization.
Interest Rate: (1) 10-year Lease/Term Loan: A tax-exempt
fixed interest rate of 1.70% per annum.
(2) 15-year Lease/Term Loan: A tax-exempt
fixed rate of 1.90% per annum.
The above rates are not locked and will be
adjusted based on any extraordinary changes in
market rates. The Bank is willing to enter into a
rate lock agreement (drafted by Bank Counsel)
once credit approval has been obtained. The rate
lock will increase the coupon by 0.10% per
A-5
annum.
Prepayment Terms: The City may prepay the Term Loan at any time
with no penalty.
Key Documents: The Term Loan will be documented by a Site
Lease, Lease Agreement and Assignment
Agreement (drafted by Bond Counsel and
reviewed by Bank Counsel) and a Supplemental
Agreement (drafted by Bank Counsel), each in
form and substance satisfactory to the Bank, that
will outline key Bank provisions including
events of default, covenants, representations and
warranties, conditions precedent,
indemnification and costs and expenses. All
others will be drafted by Bond Counsel and
reviewed by Bank Counsel.
The Term Loan shall have no CUSIP number
assigned to it, shall be in a single denomination,
and shall not be divisible or transferable except
to a bank, financial institution, or a qualified
investor. The Term Loan shall not be rated. No
official statement or other offering materials shall
be prepared for the Term Loan. If requested, the
Bank will execute a “sophisticated investor”
letter at closing.
Events of Default: Usual and customary for this type of lease
financing and otherwise acceptable to the Bank,
including but not limited to: failure to make
payments when due; cross-default to other
general fund debt of the City; breach of
covenants (including reporting covenants);
breach of representations and warranties;
invalidity; loss of tax exemption;
bankruptcy/insolvency; and withdrawal,
suspension or downgrade of the long term
unenhanced ratings assigned to any City Long-
Term Borrowing General Fund Obligation below
BBB-/Baa3
Default Rate: The Default Rate will be the Bank’s Base Rate
+3%. The Bank’s Base Rate is equal to the
greater of the Bank’s Prime Rate or Fed Funds
plus 50 basis points.
Conditions Precedent: Acquisition of title insurance in form and
substance satisfactory to the Bank. The City
shall provide certificates of insurance
A-6
evidencing other insurance coverage, including
24 months of rental interruption insurance, in
form and substance satisfactory to the Bank. In
addition, the Bank will require legal opinions of
Special Counsel related to the validity of the
Site Lease, the Lease Agreement, the
Assignment Agreement and the
Supplemental Agreement and tax-exemption,
legal opinions of counsel to the City and the
Financing Authority and other customary
conditions precedent.
Representations and Warranties: Customary for transactions of this nature and
otherwise acceptable to the Bank.
Other Covenants: To budget and appropriate lease payments until
final maturity; to maintain appropriate property
and casualty coverage, as well as liability
coverage and title insurance and 24 months
rental interruption insurance.
Fees, Costs and Charges: Bank of the West’s outside counsel fee will be
capped at $20,000, provided there are no prolonged
negotiations.
The Bank envisions no other upfront costs.
CDIAC’s fee for public sector financings, if any,
will be for the account of the City.
Reporting Requirements: Borrower’s audited financial statements due
within 240 days after the close of each fiscal year.
Annual Adopted Budget due within 60 days of
adoption. Other information shall be provided
upon request of the Bank.
Bank Counsel: The Bank proposes using the following law
firm to prepare the required Supplemental
Agreement and to represent the Bank in the
transaction:
Melanie S. Murakami, Esq.
Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP
333 So. Grand Avenue, 36th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Office: (213) 236-9063
Mobile: (213) 393-9441
Temporarily working from home
mmurakami@hawkins.com
A-7
Governing Law: State of California
Bank Representatives:
Edward C. (Ted) Neu
Public Finance-Managing Director
180 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
(415) 572-7054
Ted.Neu@bankofthewest.com
Christine Armani-Dawood
Public Finance-Director
Bank of the West
300 S Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 972-0507
Christine.Armani-
Dawood@bankofthewest.com
Matthew Kirschenman
Government Banking-Vice President
300 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 972-0646
matthew.kirscheman@bankofthewest.com
Approval: This facility is subject to final credit approval by
the Bank. A credit decision can be expected
within ten business days of selection of the Bank.
Other: Additional terms and conditions may be
requested at the time of final credit approval.
Expiration: This proposal expires on December 31, 2021
unless extended by the Bank.
Confidentiality: The terms contained in this document are
confidential and, except for disclosure to your
board, officers and employees, to professional
advisors retained by you in connection with the
transaction, or as may be required by law, may
not be disclosed in whole or part to any other
person or entity without prior written consent
from the Bank. Bank of the West understands
that, ultimately, results of the selection
process are public information.
A-8
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 11/04/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to review and discuss the new opportunity to finance
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Review, discuss, and provide recommendations on the new opportunity to finance
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project;
2. Provide any alternative recommendations on the financing options for the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park Project; and
3. Direct Staff to forward the Committee’s recommendations to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. iBank Application Package (page A-1)
B. Bank of the West Proposal (page B-1)
C. September 9, 2021 Finance Advisory Committee Staff Report (page C-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On August 24 and September 9, Staff presented an updated information on the City’s
financing options for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park (attachment C).
After some discussions, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) unanimously decided
to have the Subcommittee meet with representative from Bank of the West to better
understand their process and the financing terms and conditions before making any
formal recommendation.
On August 20, the City received the formal invitation to apply (attachment A) for
financing from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (iBank).
B-1
{vt
As highlighted in prior reports, there is no out-of-pocket cost to proceed with the
application process with iBank.
On September 23, FAC Subcommittee which included Chair Lewis, Member MacAllister
and Member Yourman participated in a Zoom meeting with Ted Neu, head of the Public
Finance at Bank of the West (BOW) to discuss the process and the proposed financing
terms. Then, on October 6, based on the request of the FAC Subcommittee, the City
received a proposal from BOW for a Lease Revenue Obligations (attachment B).
In summary, the table below captures the estimated financing costs with iBank and
BOW. The final costs will be determined after the loan is finalized. It is important to note
that the City is not obligated to accept the loan and may withdraw at any time during the
process. The final approval/acceptance of the loan is at the discretion of the City
Council.
CONCLUSION:
This item was presented on August 24 and September 9 and continued as requested by
the Committee. Staff is requesting for the Committee’s feedback and recommendation
on the financing options between iBank and BOW and direct So forward the agreed
upon recommendations to the City Council. This item is tentative schedule to be on the
November 16 City Council meeting.
iBank BOW
Loan Amount $5.5 million $5.5 million
Term 10 or 15 years 10 or 15 years
Interest Rate
2.3% for 15 years
2.2% for 10 years
1.9% for 15 years
1.7% for 10 years
Estimated Annual
Fees
0.3%
$121,000 for 15 years
$76,000 for 10 years $0
Estimated One-time
Costs $0
BOW fees $20,000
City Legal fees $50,000
Municipal Financing Authority $3,500
Financial Advisor $20,000
Estimated Interest
$1.1 million for 15 years
$0.7 million for 10 years
$0.8 million for 15 years
$0.5 million for 10 years
B-2
B-3
11.IBank
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK
INFRASTRUCTURE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM
FINANCING APPLICATION
PART I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. Legal Name of Applicant:
12. Type of Applicant:
□ City !choose One
D Assessment District
D Special District
D School District
D Other Public Agency
13. Mailing address of Applicant:
Name
Address
City
State .__lc_a_lif_or_ni_a _____ ~I Zip Codel .__ ---~
D County
D State Agency
D Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
D Joint Powers Authority
D Charter School
D Non-profit Organization, provide name of
Governmental Entity Sponsor (required)
4. Mailing address of the Governmental Entity Sponsor (required only if Applicant is a non-profit
organization):
Name I I
Address
City
State ________ __,I Zip Code ._I ___ ~ lcalifornia
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 1 of 11 10/14/21
B-4
5. In what jurisdiction(s) is the Project located?
[s. Applicant Contact information:
Name Title
Address Phone Number
City Fax Number '-------------------~
State J ~C_a_lW_o_m_ia ______ ~l~pC~e ~---~I E-mail
Governmental Entity Sponsor (required only if Applicant is a non-profit organization):
Name Title
Address Phone Number
City Fax Number
State lcalifomia J Zip Code I E-mail
7. Additional contact information: consultants, advisors, engineers, attorney and others affiliated
with the project.
Name
Address
City
State Jcalifomia ---------~'~pC~e
Name
Address
City
State Jcalifornia ---------~! Zip Code
Legal Name of Applicant
Title
Phone Number
Fax Number
~---~I E-mail
Title
Phone Number
Fax Number
~---~I E-mail
Page 2 of 11 10/14/21
B-5
1. Financing amount requested: 2. IBank origination fee included in
~------~ financing:
3. Financing Term requested: (in years)
14, Source of financing repayment:
D Enterprise Fund
D Special Fund
D Special Taxes/ Property Related Assessments
D General Fund Lease
D Assessment District/Mello-Roos Tax
D Voter Approved General Obligation Debt
D Other
1. Project Name:
12. Project Location/Address:
Street
!specify:
!specify:
I specify:
City Zip Code
3. Project Category (please reference IBank Criteria, Priorities, and Guidelines Document found HERE)
D City Street D County Highway
D Defense Conversion
D Educational Facility
D Military Infrastructure
D Port Facility
D Public Safety Facility
D Sewage Collection and Treatment
D State Highway
D Industrial, Utility, and Commercial
D Drainage and Flood Control
D Environmental Mitigation Measures
D Parks and Recreational Facility
D Power or Communications Facility
D Public Transit
D Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
D Water Treatment and Distribution
D Educational, Cultural, and Social
4. Detailed description of Project. (An environmental report, such as CEQA, capital improvement plan or feasibility
study, or other such reports containing a detailed description of the Project. If the funding request is limited to a
portion of the project, please identify as appropriate. [Attach as Exhibit 1.]
. . '" . Type of.f>el'fllit J · · bate. Submitted, Oate Received E~pfratior1 Dc1te .. . ·. ·.
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 3 of 11 10/14/21
B-6
5. Complete the attached Project Sources and Uses of Proceeds table as Exhibit 2. Attach cost estimates, bids, and
construction contracts, if available. [Label and attach as Exhibits 2a, 2b, 2c, etc.]
Attachment: I I
6. Provide documentation demonstrating commitment(s) for Project funding sources other than I Bank's, such as
resolutions, commitment letters, grant agreements, loan agreements, contracts, etc. [Label and attach as Exhibit 3 -if
multiple documents, label and attach as Exhibits 3a, 3b, 3c, etc.]
Attachment:
7. Is land acquisition a component of the Project?
□ No
D Yes
Provide a copy of the purchase agreement as Exhibit 4. Include a description of the land acquired
or to be acquired (current owner, address, assessor's parcel number, purchase date or expected
purchase date, cost or estimate), and identify the funding source for the land below:
Funding Source I I
8. Provide a Project timeline as Exhibit 5. Include specific Project milestones such as preliminary engineering report, all
required permits, design, engineering, land/right-of-way acquisition, preparation of bid documents, awarding of
construction contract, construction start date, construction completion date, and date the project will become
operational.
Attachment: I I
9. Private Activity
Will any entity, including a governmental entity other than the Applicant, use or directly benefit from any portion of the
Project other than as a member of the general public? (For example, will a private entity or a federal agency operate, or
lease space in the proposed project?)
□ No
□Yes
Describe the entity that will use or otherwise benefit from the Project. Provide a copy of any
agreement with such private entity, or federal agency. [Label and attach as Exhibit 6)
10. Will the loan finance more than 5% of the private activity costs?
□ No
D Yes
I Explain:
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 4 of 11
I
10/14/21
B-7
11. Business Relocation
Will the proposed Project facilitate the relocation of a private sector business from one area of the State to another?
0 No
D Yes
Provide a justification to support the move:
12. Non-Profit Applicants
Explain the affiliation between the non-profit and the public entity Sponsor (City, County, State Agency, Special District,
JPA, etc.) of the proposed project.
Explain:
13. Project Impact
A. Describe the economic benefits to the community and/or State resulting from this project:
Explain:
B. Provide the following:
1) The total number of jobs created and average wage.
2) The total number of jobs retained and average wage. Describe the environmental impact to the community
that will result from this Project.
Total number of jobs created Average wage of jobs created Total number of jobs retained Average wage of jobs
retained
!Explain:
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 5 of 11 10/14/21
B-8
14. Useful Life
Provide evidence of the useful life of the Project. [Label and attach as Exhibit 7)
Note : Information required in this part that was previously provided to IBank need not be resubmitted.
1. Provide complete copies of the five (5) most recent fiscal year-end audited financial statements, if not already
provided, as well as applicable revenue projections and cash flows. [Label and attach as Exhibits Sa, Sb, Sc, etc.]
2. Provide the current year's adopted budget as Exhibit 9.
0 No
D Yes
3. Are there any events that have occurred since the date of the last financial statement that could materially affect
revenues or overall financial condition of the Applicant?
0 No
D Yes
Explain:
4. In the table below, list all outstanding financing obligations (debts, notes, capital leases, etc.) secured by the source
of repayment for the requested financing. Attach as Exhibit 10 one copy of all financing documents (e.g., official
statement along with any underlying loan agreements, lease agreements, or indentures, etc. [Label and attach as
Exhibits 10a , 10b, 10c, etc.]
Name of Lender Date of Debt Outstanding Balance Maximum Annual Debt
II (as of ) Service /Lease Payment
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
~
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 6 of 11 10/14/21
B-9
5. Provide a description of any off-balance-sheet debt obligations, including capital leases and other contractual
obligations.
Explain:
6. Has the Applicant defaulted on any debt or other obligation including, but not limited to, bonds, leases, or loans
within the last five (5) years?
□No
□Yes
Specify the date(s) and circumstance(s)
7. Attach as Exhibit 11 the current Capital Improvement Plan. Explain below any expected Plan for future debt issuance:
Explain:
8. Does the Applicant have an Inter-fund Transfer Policy?
□ No
□Yes [Attach a copy ofthe policy as Exhibit 12]
1. Will the loan proceeds pay current staff to perform direct work for the Project?" ISRF Loan proceeds cannot be used to pay overtime.
□ No
□Yes
2. Will the loan proceeds pay for any general administration or overhead costs?
□No
D Yes
3. Have such costs already been incurred?
□ No
□Yes
I Explain:
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 7 of 11 10/14/21
B-10
4. Does the Project include prevailing wages as required by IBank Criteria?
□ No
□Yes
5. Will loan proceeds finance preliminary costs?
□ No
D Yes
A) Are such costs greater than 20% of the total loan amount?
□ No
D Yes
□ No
□Yes
B) Have any costs been already incurred?
Explain:
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 8 of 11 10/14/21
B-11
L~·,=-•r\!11 1 ■::te,.•11.,lfilrt•1::-~1'i'•~
1. Describe the composition of the Applicant's governing body, including the number of positions, term, and selection/
appointment process:
Explain:
2. Describe any pending or anticipated litigation and/or contractual disputes that may negatively impact the loan
repayment source, or the ability of the Applicant to enter into or repay the IBank loan:
Explain:
3. Describe any past, present, or potential issues or controversies that may impact the Project:
Explain:
4. For any applicant that is a Charter City, attach as Exhibit 13 the completed Charter City Questionnaire, and a copy of
the City's Charter including all addendums and supplements thereto.
5. For any applicant that is a School District, Special District, or Joint Powers Authority (JPA), provide the statutory
citation of formation authority or attach a copy of all formation documents and amendments as Exhibit 14.
0 No
D Yes
6. For any applicant that is a Non-Profit provide as Exhibit 15, a copy of the following:
a. Articles of Incorporation, together with all amendments
b. Certificate of Status/Good Standing
c. Bylaws, together with all amendments
d. 501 (c)(3) Determination Letter(s) from the IRS, and any related documents and correspondence with/from
IRS
e. All Form 990s for the last three years
f. All Form 990-Ts for the last three years
g. Capital Campaign brochures, form of pledge cards and related materials, if any
I acknowledge that:
All information submitted to the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) is true and
correct at the time of submission, and such information does not contain any untrue or misleading statement of a
material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements contained herein not misleading.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME AND TITLE DATE
Please tell us how you heard about I Bank and the ISRF Program.
Explain:
Legal Name of App l icant
Page 9 of 11 10/14/21
B-12
Application Checklist
(Complete and submit with Financing Application)
INDICATE
IBank WHETHER OR NOT APPLICATION EXHIBITS Staff EACH DOCUMENT
Use IS ATTACHED TO
THIS APPLICATION
Date YES NO N/A Please place an "X" in the appropriate box Rec'd
Application Signed and Dated
Exhibit 1 Study, Plan , or Other report with Detailed Project Description
Exhibit 2 Sources and Uses of Proceeds Table
Exhibit 2a Detailed cost estimates, bids, and construction contracts, that
support Exhibit
Exhibit 3 Documentation Demonstrating Commitment of Other Project
Funding Sources (includes Applicant's contribution)
Exhibit 4 Real Estate Purchase Agreement
Exhibit 5 Project Timeline
Exhibit 6 Project Benefit Information
Exhibit 7 Useful Life Exhibit
Exhibit 8 Five (5) Years Audited Financial Statements [and any applicable
revenue projections and cash flows]
Exhibit 9 Current Year Adopted Budget
Exhibit 10 Outstanding Financing Documents
Exhibit 11 Current Capital Improvement Plan
Exhibit 12 lnterfund Transfer Policy/Reimbursement Agreement
Exhibit 13 Charter City Information and Questionnaire
Exhibit 14 Di st ricts Formation Documents and Amendments
Exhibit 15 Non-Profit Applicants Exhibits
Legal Name of Applicant
Page 10 of 11 10/14/21
B-13Exhibit 2 SOURCES AND USES OF PROCEEDS TABLE (Note: Attach as Exhibit 2a detailed cost estimates, bids, and construction contracts, etc. to support data provided in the table.) PROJECT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES USES Estimated IBank [Applicant] Other Other Other TOTAL Useful Life Land Acquisition Building Construction/Renovation Construction Contingency Machinery/Equipment Engineering/Architectural/Design/Permits/ Environmental IBank Origination Fee: Other: Other: TOTAL
B-14
B-15
•.1Bank
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK
INFRASTRUCTURE STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
FINANCING APPLICATION ADDENDUM
GENERAL FUND DEBT
Rev. 7/24/2015
B-16
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK
INFRASTRUCTURE STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
GENERAL FUND FINANCING APPLICATION ADDENDUM
PART I. LEASE INFORMATION
1. Will the Project being financed be the subject of the lease? Oves D No --Describe the facility(ies) to be leased:
Address Use
Year
Built
Square
Feet
2. Explain the essential services each leased facility provides to the community .
Construction
Type
3. Attach a current preliminary title report for each proposed leased facility as Exhibit GFL-1.
4. Complete the attached Comprehensive Environmental Survey for each proposed leased facility;
include as Exhibit(s) GFL-2a, GFL-2b, GFL-2c, etc .
5. If the leased facility is not the Project to be financed, include documentation of the current fair market
value of the proposed leased facility or facilities (e.g ., an appraisal of the leased property performed
by an independent appraiser, or insurance information to document the value of the improvements
along with land valuation documentation obtained from an independent professional) as Exhibit GFL-
3.
[Name of Applicant] Page 1 Rev. 7/24/2015
B-17
GENERAL FUND LEASE ADDENDUM CHECKLIST
(Applicant, please complete this General Fund Addendum Checklist
and submit with the Financing Application.)
INCLUDED
N/ APPLICATION CONTENT
YES NO A
Exhibit GFL-1 Current Preliminary Title Report
,---□ Exhibit GFL-2 Comprehensive Environmental Survey(s) (Use attached
form.)
Exhibit GLF-3 Facility Valuation Documentation
D Exhibit GFL -4 Pre-acquisition Site Assessment or Environmental Survey
[Name of Applicant] Page 2 Rev. 7/24/2015
B-18
Exhibit GFL-2
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY
Address or location of subject property (ies):
Street:
City, Zip:
The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide information about the past and present
ownership and uses of the real property upon which the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development {IBank) will rely for security in deciding whether to extend credit. Please respond
fully to all questions, including attaching supporting documentary evidence where appropriate
(Label as Attachment 1, 2, 3, etc., as appropriate). If the questionnaire is not completely filled
out, or if questions are left unanswered, a Phase I Environmental Assessment may be required.
If space is inadequate to answer, please attach additional pages as needed.
1. History of the property
a. List the present and previous owner(s)/occupant(s) (if different than owner), the time
period of each owner or occupant of the property (start with present and include a
twenty year history if possible), and use of property:
Dates of Occupant(s) (if
Owner(s) Ownership different) Use of Property
b. Were any of the uses of property a disposal facility, a dumpsite, storage for or
involving use of chemicals, hazardous waste, or toxic materials? (Includes but not
limited to gasoline station, motor repair facility, commercial printing facility, dry
cleaners, junkyard, etc.)
ONo Oves
Explain:
c. If applicable what was the date of last transfer of ownership?
[Name of Applicant] Page 3 Rev. 7/24/2015
B-19
2. Present and previous use(s) of the adjacent (bordering) properties
a. List the present and previous uses of the adjacent properties.
Location Current Use Prior Use (include dates)
North
South
East
West
b. Were any of the uses of adjacent property a disposal facility, a dumpsite, storage for
or involving use of chemicals, hazardous waste, or toxic materials? (Includes but not
limited to gasoline station, motor repair facility, commercial printing facility, dry
cleaners, junkyard, etc.)
0No Oves
Explain:
3. Proposed use of the property
a. Discuss the proposed use of the property.
b. Was a pre-acquisition site assessment or environmental survey performed?
□No
Oves Attach a copy of the assessment/survey as Exhibit GFL-4.
[Name of Applicant] Page 4 Rev. 7/24/2015
B-20
TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER/OCCUPANT
USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY
C:hPmkalc;
4a. Are there currently any damaged or discarded automotive or industrial
batteries, pesticides, paints, or other chemicals in individual containers >5 gal
(19 L) in volume or 50 gal (190L) in the aggregate, stored on or used at the
property or at the facility?
If yes, explain :
4b. Did you observe evidence or do have any prior knowledge that previously
there have been any damaged or discarded automotive or industrial
batteries, pesticides, paints, or other chemicals in individual containers >5 gal
(19 L) in volume or 50 gal (190L) in the aggregate, stored on or used at the
property or at the facility?
If yes, explain :
Sa. Are there currently any industrial drums (typically 55 gal (208L)) or sacks of
chemicals located on the property or at the facility?
If yes, explain:
Sb. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that there
have been any industrial drums (typically 55 gal (208L)) or sacks of chemicals
located on the property or at the facility?
If yes, explain:
Dirt, Pits or Ponds
6. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that fill dirt
has been brought onto the property that originated from:
a. a contaminated site?
b. an unknown origin?
If yes, explain:
7a . Are there currently any pits, ponds, or lagoons located on the property in
connection with waste treatment or waste disposal?
If yes, explain:
7b . Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that
previously there have been any pits, ponds, or lagoons located on the
property in connection with waste treatment or waste disposal?
If yes, explain:
Sa . Is there currently any stained soil on the property?
If yes, explain:
[Name of Applicant] Pag e 5
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
Yes No
0
Yes No
Yes No
00
Rev. 7/24/2015
B-21
Sb. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that
previously there has been any stained soil on the property?
If yes, explain:
Tanks
9a . Are there currently any registered or unregistered storage tanks (above or
underground) located on the property?
If yes, explain:
9b. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that
previously there have been any registered or unregistered storage tanks
(above or underground) located on the property?
10a. Are there currently any vent pipes, fill pipes, or access ways indicating a fill
pipe protruding from the ground on the property or adjacent to any
structure located on the property?
If yes, explain:
10b. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that
previously there have been any vent pipes, fill pipes, or access ways
indicating a fill pipe protruding from the ground on the property or adjacent
to any structure located on the property?
If yes, explain:
Drains
lla. Are there currently any flooring, drains, or walls located within the facility
that are stained by substances other than water or are emitting foul odors?
If yes, explain:
llb. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that
previously there have been any flooring, drains, or walls located within the
facility that are stained by substances other than water or are emitting foul
odors?
If yes, explain:
Water
12. If the property is served by a private well or non-public water system, is there
evidence or do you have prior knowledge:
a. that contaminants have been identified in the well or system that
exceed guidelines applicable to the water system?
If yes, explain:
b. that the well has been designated as contaminated by any government
environmental/health agency?
If yes, explain:
[Name of Applicant] Page 6
Yes No
00
Yes No
0
Yes
Yes No 00
Yes No
00
No
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Rev. 7/24/2015
B-22
Hazardous Substances
I
13. Does the owner or occupant of the property have any knowledge of
complaints, citations, environmental liens or governmental notification
relating to past or recurrent violations of environmental laws with respect to
the property or any facility located on the property?
If yes, explain :
14. Has the owner or occupant of the property been informed of the:
a. past existence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, including
lead-based paints, with respect to the property or any facility located on
the property?
If yes, explain:
b. current existence of hazardous substances, petroleum products,
including lead-based paints with respect to the property or any facility
located on the property?
If yes, explain:
Environmental Violations
15. Has the owner or occupant of the property been informed of the:
a. past experience of environmental violations with respect to the property
or any facility located on the property?
If yes, explain:
b. current existence of environmental violations with respect to the
property or any facility located on the property?
If yes, explain:
16. Does the owner or occupant of the property have any knowledge of any
environmental site assessment of the property or facility that indicated the
presence of hazardous substances, including lead -based paints, or petroleum
products on, or contamination of, the property or recommended further
assessment of the property?
If yes, explain:
17. Does the owner or occupant of the property know of any past, threatened,
or pending lawsuits or administrative proceedings concerning a release or
threatened release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products
involving the property by any owner or occupant of the property?
If yes, explain:
18a. Does the property discharge waste water on or adjacent to the property,
other than storm water, into a storm water system?
If yes, explain:
18b. Does the property discharge waste water on or adjacent to the property,
other than storm water, into a sanitary sewer system?
If ye s, explain :
[Name of Applicant] Page 7
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes
J
No
1
j
Yes No
00
Yes No
00
Yes No
Rev . 7/24/2015
B-23
19. Did you observe evidence or do you have any prior knowledge that any
hazardous substances, including or petroleum products, unidentified waste
materials, tires, automotive or industrial batteries or any other waste
materials have been dumped above grade, buried and/or burned on the
property? Ye s No
If yes, explain: 0 0
20. Is there a transformer, capacitor, or any hydraulic equipment for which there
are any records indicating the presence of PCB's? Yes No
If yes, explain: 0 ()
Signatures: This document may be signed in counterparts. The information contained herein is
intended for the use of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank and should
not be relied on by the borrower or any other party to the transaction.
I have reviewed my responses above and hereby attest that they are true and correct.
Owner/Occupant: _____________ _ Date: -----------
I have reviewed the above responses and I hereby attest that I have no additional knowledge
that is contrary to this information .
Borrower: ________________ _ Date: __________ _
[Name of Applicant] Page 8 Rev . 7/24/2015
B-24
B-25
•.1Bank
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK
LOAN FINANCING
CHARTER CITY QUESTIONNAIRE
LEGAL NAME OF APPLICANT For /Bank Use:
DATE RECEIVED
NAME OF PROJECT
Instructions: The following questions are required to comply with (1) California Public Contract Code, Part 1 of Division 2, Chapter
2.8 Project Labor Agreements, commencing with Section 2500 et. seq., and (2) California Labor Code, part 7 of Division 2, Chapter
1, Public Works, Article 2, Wages, commencing with Section 1770, et seq. Answer the questions by selecting checking a "Yes" or
"No" response and follow the provided directions.
1. Does the City have a charter provision, initiative, or ordinance that:
i. Prohibits the City's governing board from considering a project labor agreement that includes the
taxpayer protections provided by Section 2500 of the California Public Contract Code?
ii. Prohibits the City's governing board from considering whether to allocate funds to a City-funded project
covered by a project labor agreement with taxpayer protections provided by Section 2500 of the
California Public Contract Code? or
iii. Prohibits, limits, or constrains in any way the City's governing board's authority or discretion to adopt,
require or utilize a project labor agreement that includes all of the taxpayer protection provisions of
Section 2500 of the California Public Contract Code for some or all of the construction projects to be
awarded by the City?
YesO to any of the questions the City is ineligible to receive I Bank Financing.
No O no to all the questions, the City is eligible for consideration to receive IBank
Financing .
2. Does the City have a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with California Labor Code,
Part 7 of Division 2, Chapter 1, Public Works, Article 2, Wages, commencing with Section 1770, et seq . ("Article 2"),
including the payment of prevailing wages, for a public works contract as defined in Labor Code Sect ion 1782?
Yes D the City is ineligible for consideration to receive IBank Financing unless it
answers "yes" to questions 4 or 6, below.
No D, the City is eligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
11-23 -1 5
B-26
3. Has the City within the previous two years awarded a public works contract, as defined in Labor Code Section 1782,
without requiring the contractor to comply with all provisions of Article 2?
YesO, the City is ineligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing unless the City
(i) provides documentation satisfactory to !Bank that Its failure to include a
prevailing wage or apprenticeship requirement in a particular contract was
inadvertent and contrary to a City charter provision or ordinance that
otherwise requires compliance with Article 2, (ii) answers "yes" to question 6,
or (iii) answers "yes" to question 7.
No D, the City is eligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing .
4. [Skip this question if the City answered "no" to question 2.) If the City answered "yes" to question 2, does the City have a
local prevailing wage ordinance for all its public works contracts (as defined in Labor Code Section 1782) that includes
requirements that in all respects are equal to or greater than the requirements imposed by the provisions of Article 2 and
that do not authorize a contractor to not comply with Article 2?
YesO the City is eligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
No D the City is ineligible for consideration to receive IBank Financing unless it
answers "yes" to question 6.
5. Is the City included on the list maintained by the Director of Industrial Relations of the charter cities that may receive and
use state funding or financial assistance for their construction projects?
YesO, the City is eligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
No O the City is ineligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing unless it
answers "yes" to question 6.
6. [Skip this question if the City answered "no" to questions 2 or 3 or answered "yes" to questions 4 or 5.) If the City
answered "yes" to questions 2 or 3, or answered "no" to questions 4 or 5, is the City seeking I Bank Financing to complete a
contract that was awarded prior to January 1, 2015?
YesO the City is eligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
No D, the City is ineligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
7. [Skip this question if the City answered "no" to question 3.) If the City answered "yes" to question 3, is the City seeking
I Bank Financing to perform a contract the City advertised for bid or awarded prior to January 1, 2015?
YesO the City is eligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
No D, the City is ineligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
2 11-23-15
.
B-27
Sign, date, and submit this form if:
(i) The City answered "no" to question 1; and
(ii) The City answered "no" to question 2, or answered "yes" to question 2 and also answered "yes" to questions 4 or 6; and
(iii) The City answered "no" to question 3, or answered "yes" to question 3 and also either (a) provided the documentation
required under question 3, (b) answered "yes" to question 6, or (c) answered "yes" to question 7; and
(iv) The City answered "yes" to question 5, or answered "no" to question 5 and also answered "yes" to question 6.
Otherwise, the City is ineligible for consideration to receive I Bank Financing.
APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE
I hereby certify that I am an authorized representative of the Applicant, and that I have been authorized by the Applicant to
execute this Charter City Questionnaire for I Bank financing.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PRINT NAME AND TITLE DATE
3 11-23-15
B-28
Bank of the West Proposal
To
Up to $5,500,000
2021 Lease Revenue Obligations
October 6, 2021
B-29
RI-\NCHO !¾..OS VERDES
October 6, 2021
Ms. Trang Nguyen
Director of Finance
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
tguyen@rpvca.gov
Re: City of Ranch Palos Verdes 2021 Lease Revenue Obligations
Dear Trang:
Bank of the West (the “Bank”) is pleased to present our proposal to provide a tax-exempt term
loan (the “Term Loan”) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the completion of a new city-
owned community center (“Ladera Linda Community Center and Park”) in an amount up to $5.5
million.
Bank of the West is a member of BNP Paribas Group, one of the largest and healthiest banks in
the world. We are a financially sound, California State-Chartered bank and California State
approved depository bank, headquartered in San Francisco.
The Bank’s Public Finance Department is a major provider of credit facilities in the form of
letters of credit, private placements, direct purchase facilities, lines of credit, funded loans and
leases to municipal borrowers. Our team has a combined forty years of experience in providing
these facilities to local government agencies.
We have provided approximately $300 million in credit facilities to municipal borrowers over
the last 12 months, including a $110 million line of credit to back the San Diego County Water
Authority’s commercial paper program and a $100 million line to back Los Angeles County
Department of Water and Power’s bonds. We have provided private placements to numerous
municipal borrowers including the City of Pittsburg, Stanislaus County, Town of Windsor,
Novato Fire Protection District, and Madera County.
Bank of the West is pleased to be the provider of full-service banking to the City and we
appreciate this opportunity to support the City’s financing needs.
B-30
Sincerely,
Christine Armani-Dawood Matthew Kirschenman
Director Vice President
Public Finance Division Government Banking Division
B-31
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
$5,500,000
2021 Lease Revenue Obligations
The proposed terms and conditions are provided for discussion purposes only and do not constitute
an offer, agreement, or commitment to lend by Bank of the West (“Lender”). The actual terms and
conditions upon which Bank of the West might extend credit to the Borrower are subject to satisfactory
completion of due diligence, internal credit approval, satisfactory documentation and other such terms
and conditions as determined solely by Bank of the West.
Lender: Bank of the West (the “Bank”)
Borrower: City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the “City”)
Purpose and Structure: A term loan to the City (the “Term Loan”) to
provide funds for a portion of the costs
associated with the construction of a new City-
owned community center, the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park project. The
project includes the demolition of five existing
buildings, and construction of a new
Community Center, outdoor tiered seating, a
parking lot and children’s playground.
The Term Loan will be structured as a lease-
leaseback between the City and the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Financing Authority,
subject to abatement. The lease payments owed
by the City to the Financing Authority and
payable from the City’s General Fund revenues
and the Financing Authority’s right, title and
interest in the Site Lease and the Lease
Agreement will be assigned to the Bank. The
Lease Agreement will contain customary
insurance provisions regarding the Leased
Property, including rental interruption
insurance, casualty insurance and title
insurance, and covenants to repair and rebuild
and apply net proceeds.
Term: The Bank is offering the following:
(1) A 10-year Lease/Term Loan with level
principal amortization and semi-annual interest
payments.
B-32
(2) A 15-year Lease/Term Loan with level
principal amortization and semi-annual interest
payments.
Repayment Source: The Lease Payments and any Additional Rental
Payments due to the Bank will be payable from
the General Fund of the City pursuant to the
terms of the Lease Agreement. The Lease
Payments and any Additional Rental Payments
are payable from the City’s General Fund and
any other legally available funds. The Lease
Payments and Additional Rental Payments are
payable by the City for and in consideration of
the right of the use and occupancy of, and the
continued quiet use and enjoyment of the
Leased Property. The City covenants to take all
actions required to include the Lease Payments
and Additional Rental Payments in each of its
budgets during the Term of the Lease
Agreement and to make the necessary
appropriations for all Lease Payments and
Additional Rental Payments. The foregoing
covenant of the City contained constitutes a
duty imposed by law. Lease Payments are
subject to abatement in each fiscal year.
Leased Property: The “Leased Property” has yet to be determined
by the City; however, it is expected to be an
essential asset owned by the City which is
acceptable to the Bank. In addition, the Leased
Property shall have an appraised value
(including land value), and sufficiently clear
title, which is acceptable to the Bank and a fair
market rental value which is sufficient in the
opinion of Special Counsel to support the Term
Loan described herein..
Principal Amortization: Annual (level) principal amortization.
Interest Rate: (1) 10-year Lease/Term Loan: A tax-exempt
fixed interest rate of 1.70% per annum.
(2) 15-year Lease/Term Loan: A tax-exempt
fixed rate of 1.90% per annum.
The above rates are not locked and will be
adjusted based on any extraordinary changes in
market rates. The Bank is willing to enter into a
rate lock agreement (drafted by Bank Counsel)
once credit approval has been obtained. The rate
lock will increase the coupon by 0.10% per
B-33
annum.
Prepayment Terms: The City may prepay the Term Loan at any time
with no penalty.
Key Documents: The Term Loan will be documented by a Site
Lease, Lease Agreement and Assignment
Agreement (drafted by Bond Counsel and
reviewed by Bank Counsel) and a Supplemental
Agreement (drafted by Bank Counsel), each in
form and substance satisfactory to the Bank, that
will outline key Bank provisions including
events of default, covenants, representations and
warranties, conditions precedent,
indemnification and costs and expenses. All
others will be drafted by Bond Counsel and
reviewed by Bank Counsel.
The Term Loan shall have no CUSIP number
assigned to it, shall be in a single denomination,
and shall not be divisible or transferable except
to a bank, financial institution, or a qualified
investor. The Term Loan shall not be rated. No
official statement or other offering materials shall
be prepared for the Term Loan. If requested, the
Bank will execute a “sophisticated investor”
letter at closing.
Events of Default: Usual and customary for this type of lease
financing and otherwise acceptable to the Bank,
including but not limited to: failure to make
payments when due; cross-default to other
general fund debt of the City; breach of
covenants (including reporting covenants);
breach of representations and warranties;
invalidity; loss of tax exemption;
bankruptcy/insolvency; and withdrawal,
suspension or downgrade of the long term
unenhanced ratings assigned to any City Long-
Term Borrowing General Fund Obligation below
BBB-/Baa3
Default Rate: The Default Rate will be the Bank’s Base Rate
+3%. The Bank’s Base Rate is equal to the
greater of the Bank’s Prime Rate or Fed Funds
plus 50 basis points.
Conditions Precedent: Acquisition of title insurance in form and
substance satisfactory to the Bank. The City
shall provide certificates of insurance
B-34
evidencing other insurance coverage, including
24 months of rental interruption insurance, in
form and substance satisfactory to the Bank. In
addition, the Bank will require legal opinions of
Special Counsel related to the validity of the
Site Lease, the Lease Agreement, the
Assignment Agreement and the
Supplemental Agreement and tax-exemption,
legal opinions of counsel to the City and the
Financing Authority and other customary
conditions precedent.
Representations and Warranties: Customary for transactions of this nature and
otherwise acceptable to the Bank.
Other Covenants: To budget and appropriate lease payments until
final maturity; to maintain appropriate property
and casualty coverage, as well as liability
coverage and title insurance and 24 months
rental interruption insurance.
Fees, Costs and Charges: Bank of the West’s outside counsel fee will be
capped at $20,000, provided there are no prolonged
negotiations.
The Bank envisions no other upfront costs.
CDIAC’s fee for public sector financings, if any,
will be for the account of the City.
Reporting Requirements: Borrower’s audited financial statements due
within 240 days after the close of each fiscal year.
Annual Adopted Budget due within 60 days of
adoption. Other information shall be provided
upon request of the Bank.
Bank Counsel: The Bank proposes using the following law
firm to prepare the required Supplemental
Agreement and to represent the Bank in the
transaction:
Melanie S. Murakami, Esq.
Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP
333 So. Grand Avenue, 36th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Office: (213) 236-9063
Mobile: (213) 393-9441
Temporarily working from home
mmurakami@hawkins.com
B-35
Governing Law: State of California
Bank Representatives:
Edward C. (Ted) Neu
Public Finance-Managing Director
180 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
(415) 572-7054
Ted.Neu@bankofthewest.com
Christine Armani-Dawood
Public Finance-Director
Bank of the West
300 S Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 972-0507
Christine.Armani-
Dawood@bankofthewest.com
Matthew Kirschenman
Government Banking-Vice President
300 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 972-0646
matthew.kirscheman@bankofthewest.com
Approval: This facility is subject to final credit approval by
the Bank. A credit decision can be expected
within ten business days of selection of the Bank.
Other: Additional terms and conditions may be
requested at the time of final credit approval.
Expiration: This proposal expires on December 31, 2021
unless extended by the Bank.
Confidentiality: The terms contained in this document are
confidential and, except for disclosure to your
board, officers and employees, to professional
advisors retained by you in connection with the
transaction, or as may be required by law, may
not be disclosed in whole or part to any other
person or entity without prior written consent
from the Bank. Bank of the West understands
that, ultimately, results of the selection
process are public information.
B-36
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 09/09/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to review and discuss the new opportunity to finance
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Review, discuss, and provide recommendations on the new opportunity to finance
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project;
2. Provide any alternative recommendations on the financing options for the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park Project; and
3. Direct Staff to forward the Committee’s recommendations to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. August 24, 2021 Finance Advisory Committee Staff Report (page A-1)
B. New Amortization Schedule form iBank (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On August 24, Staff presented an updated information on the City’s financing options for
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project Some questions were asked by
all members present at the meeting and answered by Staff. There were also follow-up
questions and suggestions made by Member MacAllister and Yourman. Those
questions and suggestions are listed on the next page.
B-37
Finance Advisory Committee’s Questions
There were three follow-up questions from the August 24 meeting.
(1) What is the updated estimated cost for Ladera Linda?
The last cost update presented to the City Council was July 6, 2021 which added
$100,000 for escalation from the revised construction date, no later than
February 2022, bringing the estimated total cost from $15.9 million to $16 million.
The cost estimator consultant, MGAC, recommended that the City Council
consider a market volatility factor of at least 10% or $1.4 million to account for
price fluctuation in construction materials and skilled labor. The cost estimate
does not include motorized roll-down security gates over all glazing, an option
which will be considered by the City Council as part of the security plan and
could add $260,000 to the project. The cost estimate also does not include a
savings of $100,000 from replacing the wood light pole fixtures with a steel light
pole fixture.
(2) How much does it cost to form and maintain a Financing Authority? How does it
compare to renting one?
The cost of forming the Finance Authority ranges between $15,000 to $25,000.
The monetary annual maintenance includes an annual filing which is
approximately $500 to $1,000 and an audit for approximately $5,000 based on
the current cost of the RDA annual audit fee.
The cost to rent a Finance Authority is based on the size of the loan. This is a
one-time cost with no annual maintenance required.
Under $1 million - $2,500
$1 - $10 million - $3,500
Over $10 million - $4,500
(3) How long do we have to draw down funding with iBank and Bank of the West?
When does interest accrual start for iBank and Bank of the West?
Interest accrual starts on the execution date of the financing agreement with
iBank. As noted on the amortization schedule, payments to iBank are twice a
year. One in February for interest payment and the second in August for the
principal and interest payment. Once the agreement is approved by iBank
Financing Board, the City has up to six months to execute the agreement.
Additionally, iBank’s financing agreement will include a term that construction is
expected to be completed within two years from the date of the execution. If a
delay occurs, the City can extend the term. Lastly, the City must submit an
B-38
invoice to draw down fund. The invoice can be for expenditures related to the
project that the City has previously paid.
Staff has also reached out to Bank of the West to obtain additional information, but Staff
has not received a respond from the bank in time for this report. Staff will provide
updates to FAC if information is received prior to the September 9 meeting.
Finance Advisory Committee’s Suggestions
It was suggested that the annual fees and one-time costs be separated on the
comparison table. Staff has taken the suggestion and updated the tables. Staff have
also updated iBank’s interest rate to reflect the latest update received from iBank on
August 23rd. The row highlighted in yellow are the changes from the staff report. After
confirming the information, the interest rate for the 15-year loan with Bank of the West is
2% and the 10-year loan is 1.85%. Therefore, the financial information in the table as
presented at the August 24 meeting is correct.
Table 1: Preliminary Information for iBank and Bank of the West (updated)
Description iBank BOW
Loan amount $5.5 - $8 million $5.5 - $10 million
Term 10, 15, 20, and 30 years Flexible
Preliminary interest rate 2.3% for 15 years
2.2% for 10 years
2% for 15 years
1.85% for 10 years
Annual fees 0.30%0
Prepayment penalty None None
One-time costs No Yes
Require collateral Yes Yes
Finance Authority No Yes
B-39
Table 2: Financing Costs for iBank and Bank of the West (updated)
iBank BOW Savings
Loan Amount $5.50 million $5.50 million
Term 15 years 15 years
Interest Rate 2.3%2.0%
Annual Fees 0.30%0%
Total Interest Payment $1.11 million $880,000 $230,000
Total Annual Fees $120,600 $120,600
Total One-time Costs $0 $93,500 $93,500
Total Cost of Financing $1.23 million $973,500 $257,100
Average Annual Payment $448,700 $425,300 $23,400
Total Payment $6.73 million $6.47 million $260,000
iBank BOW Savings
Loan Amount $5.50 million $5.50 million
Term 10 years 10 years
Interest Rate 2.2%1.85%
Annual Fees 0.30%0%
Total Interest Payment $735,100 $605,000 $130,100
Total Annual Fees $76,100 $0 $76,100
Total One-time Costs $0 $93,500 $93,500
Total Cost of Financing $811,200 $698,500 $112,700
Average Annual Payment $631,100 $610,500 $20,600
Total Payment $6.31 million $6.20 million $110,000
CONCLUSION:
This item was presented on August 24 and continued as requested by the Committee.
Staff is requesting for the Committee’s feedback and recommendation on the financing
options between iBank and BOW and direct staff to forward the agreed upon
recommendations to the City Council.
B-40
$5,500,000
2.20%Loan or Lease Lease
0.30%
2/15/2021 Fiscal Year Ends June 30
First Interest Only Pmt Date 2/1/2023
First Principal Pmt Date 8/1/2023
10
Amortization Period 8
- -
Payment
Date
Ending Principal
Balance
Principal
Component
Interest
Component
Base Rental
Payment
Additional
Rental
Payment
Total Payment
Total Payment
Fiscal Year Ending
June 30
15-Feb-2021 $5,500,000.00
1-Feb-2023 $237,294.44 $237,294.44 $237,294.44 $237,294.44
1-Aug-2023 $4,863,710.39 $636,289.61 $60,500.00 $696,789.61 $16,500.00 $713,289.61
1-Feb-2024 $53,500.81 $53,500.81 $53,500.81 $766,790.43
1-Aug-2024 $4,213,422.40 $650,287.98 $53,500.81 $703,788.80 $14,591.13 $718,379.93
1-Feb-2025 $46,347.65 $46,347.65 $46,347.65 $764,727.58
1-Aug-2025 $3,548,828.08 $664,594.32 $46,347.65 $710,941.97 $12,640.27 $723,582.23
1-Feb-2026 $39,037.11 $39,037.11 $39,037.11 $762,619.34
1-Aug-2026 $2,869,612.69 $679,215.39 $39,037.11 $718,252.50 $10,646.48 $728,898.99
1-Feb-2027 $31,565.74 $31,565.74 $31,565.74 $760,464.73
1-Aug-2027 $2,175,454.56 $694,158.13 $31,565.74 $725,723.87 $8,608.84 $734,332.71
1-Feb-2028 $23,930.00 $23,930.00 $23,930.00 $758,262.71
1-Aug-2028 $1,466,024.94 $709,429.61 $23,930.00 $733,359.61 $6,526.36 $739,885.98
1-Feb-2029 $16,126.27 $16,126.27 $16,126.27 $756,012.25
1-Aug-2029 $740,987.88 $725,037.06 $16,126.27 $741,163.34 $4,398.07 $745,561.41
1-Feb-2030 $8,150.87 $8,150.87 $8,150.87 $753,712.28
1-Aug-2030 $740,987.88 $8,150.87 $749,138.75 $2,222.96 $751,361.71
$751,361.71
$5,500,000.00 $735,111.35 $6,235,111.35 $76,134.12 $6,311,245.47 $6,311,245.47
Ladera Park
Total Payments:
Applicant/Project Name
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Annual Fee
Funding Date
Loan Years
B-41
$5,500,000
2.30%Loan or Lease Lease
0.30%
2/15/2021 Fiscal Year Ends June 30
First Interest Only Pmt Date 2/1/2023
First Principal Pmt Date 8/1/2023
15
Amortization Period 13
- -
Payment
Date
Ending Principal
Balance
Principal
Component
Interest
Component
Base Rental
Payment
Additional
Rental
Payment
Total Payment
Total Payment
Fiscal Year
Ending June 30
15-Feb-2021 $5,500,000.00
1-Feb-2023 $248,080.56 $248,080.56 $248,080.56 $248,080.56
1-Aug-2023 $5,132,214.40 $367,785.60 $63,250.00 $431,035.60 $16,500.00 $447,535.60
1-Feb-2024 $59,020.47 $59,020.47 $59,020.47 $506,556.06
1-Aug-2024 $4,755,969.74 $376,244.67 $59,020.47 $435,265.13 $15,396.64 $450,661.77
1-Feb-2025 $54,693.65 $54,693.65 $54,693.65 $505,355.43
1-Aug-2025 $4,371,071.45 $384,898.29 $54,693.65 $439,591.94 $14,267.91 $453,859.85
1-Feb-2026 $50,267.32 $50,267.32 $50,267.32 $504,127.18
1-Aug-2026 $3,977,320.49 $393,750.95 $50,267.32 $444,018.27 $13,113.21 $457,131.49
1-Feb-2027 $45,739.19 $45,739.19 $45,739.19 $502,870.67
1-Aug-2027 $3,574,513.27 $402,807.23 $45,739.19 $448,546.41 $11,931.96 $460,478.37
1-Feb-2028 $41,106.90 $41,106.90 $41,106.90 $501,585.27
1-Aug-2028 $3,162,441.48 $412,071.79 $41,106.90 $453,178.69 $10,723.54 $463,902.23
1-Feb-2029 $36,368.08 $36,368.08 $36,368.08 $500,270.31
1-Aug-2029 $2,740,892.03 $421,549.44 $36,368.08 $457,917.52 $9,487.32 $467,404.84
1-Feb-2030 $31,520.26 $31,520.26 $31,520.26 $498,925.10
1-Aug-2030 $2,309,646.95 $431,245.08 $31,520.26 $462,765.34 $8,222.68 $470,988.01
1-Feb-2031 $26,560.94 $26,560.94 $26,560.94 $497,548.95
1-Aug-2031 $1,868,483.24 $441,163.72 $26,560.94 $467,724.66 $6,928.94 $474,653.60
1-Feb-2032 $21,487.56 $21,487.56 $21,487.56 $496,141.15
1-Aug-2032 $1,417,172.76 $451,310.48 $21,487.56 $472,798.04 $5,605.45 $478,403.49
1-Feb-2033 $16,297.49 $16,297.49 $16,297.49 $494,700.98
1-Aug-2033 $955,482.13 $461,690.62 $16,297.49 $477,988.11 $4,251.52 $482,239.63
1-Feb-2034 $10,988.04 $10,988.04 $10,988.04 $493,227.67
1-Aug-2034 $483,172.63 $472,309.51 $10,988.04 $483,297.55 $2,866.45 $486,164.00
1-Feb-2035 $5,556.49 $5,556.49 $5,556.49 $491,720.48
1-Aug-2035 $483,172.63 $5,556.49 $488,729.11 $1,449.52 $490,178.63
$490,178.63
$5,500,000.00 $1,110,543.31 $6,610,543.31 $120,745.14 $6,731,288.45 $6,731,288.45
Ladera Park
Total Payments:
Applicant/Project Name
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Annual Fee
Funding Date
Loan Years
B-42
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 08/24/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to review and discuss the new opportunity to finance
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Review, discuss, and provide recommendations on the new opportunity to finance
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project;
2. Provide any alternative recommendations on the financing options for the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park Project; and
3. Direct Staff to forward the Committee’s recommendations to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: George Lewis, Finance Advisory Committee Vice-Chair
John MacAllister, Finance Advisory Committee Member
Kevin Yourman, Finance Advisory Committee Member
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. May 18, 2021 City Council Staff Report (page A-1)
B. Amortization Schedules (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On May 18, 2021, the City Council approved the Finance Advisory Committee’s (FAC)
recommendation for the financing options for the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park Project and directed staff to proceed with filling the necessary application with
iBank. The approved financing options are summarized below:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project.
• A 50/50 split between financing with the Infrastructure Bank (iBank) and the
Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund.
• Create a framework to replenish the CIP Fund with:
B-43
{vt
o Private funding campaign
o Interest earnings
o General Fund surplus
In late May, Staff began the pre-qualification process with iBank and submitted all
required financial, project details, and answered all supplemental questions by mid-June.
During the preliminary review, iBank representative indicated that the scope of the project
qualifies for financing with iBank and based on the City’s financial position, the City could
borrow up to $8 million for the project. To date, the City is stil l waiting on the formal
invitation and application from iBank to bring back to FAC for review before going to the
City Council.
In early July, Preferred Bank contacted the City expressing interest in assisting the City
finance the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. After a brief discussion
with the bank representative, at this time, Preferred Bank could not match the 2.5% that
iBank has quoted for the City.
Subsequently, Staff took this opportunity and reached out the Bank of the West (BOW),
the City’s operating bank, to see if they have a financing program for the City. After
several meetings with the Director of Public Finance for BOW, Staff believes that there
is an opportunity that the City may consider with BOW.
On July 20, 2021, Director Nguyen met with the FAC subcommittee to discuss the new
opportunity and the subcommittee recommends that this information be shared and
discuss with the FAC. Table 1 below summarizes the preliminary information from both
iBank and BOW.
Table 1: Preliminary Information for iBank and Bank of the West
Description iBank BOW
Loan amount $5.5 - $8 million $5.5 - $10 million
Term 10, 15, 20, and 30 years Flexible
Preliminary interest rate 2.5% 2% for 15 years
1.85% for 10 years
Annual fees 0.30% 0
Prepayment penalty None None
Require collateral Yes Yes
Finance Authority No Yes
To assist with the discussion tonight, Staff has prepared the following financing cost
analysis, based on the preliminary assumptions from both financial institutions. The
following tables demonstrate that there are potential financing cost savings with BOW.
B-44
Table 2: Financing Costs for iBank and Bank of the West
iBank BOW Savings
Loan Amount $5.50 million $5.50 million
Term 15 years 15 years
Interest Rate 2.5% 2.0%
Annual Fees 0.30% 0%
Total Interest Payment $1.14 million $880,000 $260,000
Total Fees $139,600 $93,500 $46,100
Total Cost of Financing $1.28 million $973,500 $306,100
Average Annual Payment $452,000 $425,300 $26,700
Total Payment $6.78 million $6.47 million $310,000
iBank BOW Savings
Loan Amount $5.50 million $5.50 million
Term 10 years 10 years
Interest Rate 2.5% 1.85%
Annual Fees 0.30% 0%
Total Interest Payment $761,300 $605,000 $156,300
Total Fees $94,100 $93,500 $600
Total Cost of Financing $855,400 $698,500 $156,900
Average Annual Payment $635,500 $610,500 $25,000
Total Payment $6.35 million $6.20 million $150,000
As shown in Table 2, for a loan amount of $5.5 million for 15 years, when compared to
the iBank’s rates, BOW’s interest rate is lower at 2% with no annual fees, with an
estimated savings of $306,100. The total fees of $93,500 for BOW are one -time fees,
inclusive of $70,000 bond counsel for both the City and BOW and $23,500 for appraisal
and financial advisor fees.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, the financing Subcommittee and Director Nguyen met on July 20, 2021 to
discuss the new opportunity to finance for the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park Project. Based on the discussion amongst Subcommittee Member Lewis, Member
MacAllister, Member Yourman, and Director Nguyen, the Subcommittee recommends
that the opportunity available from BOW be presented to the entire FAC Members for
review and discussion. The Subcommittee and Staff are requesting for FAC’s feedback
and recommendations on the financing options presented tonight and direct Staff to
forward the agreed upon recommendations to the City Council.
B-45
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/18/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to identify a financing option for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
1. Based on a traditional procurement approach, review the financing option
recommended by the Finance Advisory Committee for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project using the following combined funding
sources:
a. 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act;
b. Available funds in the Quimby Fund;
c. A 50/50 split between financing with iBank and the Capital Infrastructure
Program Fund Reserve; and,
d. Create a framework to replenish CIP Fund with interest earnings, additional
transfers from the General Fund when there is a surplus, and private
funding such as donations and capital fundraisers.
2. If acceptable, affirm the FAC’s recommendation and direct Staff to proceed with
filing the necessary application with iBank.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. CIP Fund Forecasts (page A-1)
B. Sample iBank Amortization Schedule (page B-1)
C. April 22, 2021 Finance Advisory Committee staff report (page C-1)
D. May 6, 2021 Finance Advisory Committee staff report (page D-1)
E. Public comments received by May 11, 2021 (page E-1)
C-1
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 2021, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. The summary of the approval are as
follows:
• Adopted Resolution No. 2021-13 upholding the Planning Commission-
approved planning entitlements, with conditions of approval, consisting of
Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review
application findings (planning entitlements), thereby approving the project with
certain modifications to the conditions.
• Directed Staff to proceed with the completion of construction documents and
authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans and
specifications for the project.
• Directed Staff to relocate and optimize handicap parking spaces closer to the
building and explore the cost and effective ways to install exterior shutters
over glass surfaces to provide the necessary security.
Based on the City Council’s directives on the project, which was estimated to cost
approximately $15.7 million at the April 6 meeting, potential financing options were
presented to the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) at a special meeting on April 22,
2021 (Attachment C). At the conclusion of the meeting, FAC formed two Subcommittees
to review (1) financing options and (2) operating financial impacts of the new facility.
The Subcommittee Members for the financing options are Vice Chair Lewis and
Members MacAllister and Yourman. The Subcommittee for the operating financial
impacts is comprised of Members Vlaco and Seal.
On May 6, 2021, the financing options Subcommittee presented its recommendations to
the larger FAC, which, after considering the information presented, voted unanimously
to forward the following recommendation to the City Council:
• Use up to 50% of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the
project. Currently estimated at $3.9 million.
• Use any available funding from the Quimby Fund for the project. Currently
estimated at $943,500.
• For the remaining balance of the Project cost, fund the difference between a loan
and the Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund reserve, as follows:
o Use iBank to finance the remaining 50% of the project cost, after the use of
ARPA and the Quimby Fund, with a term of 10 years. Currently, the estimated
financing amount is $5.5 million or 35% of the total estimated project cost as
reported on April 6.
o Use reserves from the CIP Fund to fund the remaining 50% of the project
cost. Currently, it is estimated that $5.3 million or 34% of the total estimated
project cost, as reported on April 6, would be needed.
C-2
• Create a framework to replenish the CIP Fund with interest earnings, additional
transfers from the General Fund when there is a surplus, and private funding
such as donations and capital fundraisers.
The above recommendation from FAC ensures that construction of the project will not
result in any tax increase to residents and that projects identified in the 5 -year CIP
continue to be funded based on the City’s current practice of using transient occupancy
tax (TOT) generated by Terranea and restricted funds.
At the same meeting, the operating financial impacts Subcommittee also reported that it
met with Finance Director Nguyen, Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Trautner, and
Recreation and Parks Senior Administrative Analyst Waters to discuss the project’s
operating revenues and expenditures after construction is completed. The discussion
that ensued with the Subcommittee revealed that it is too early and there is not enough
data or information to make any assumptions of the operating impacts of the new
facility. Therefore, the FAC recommended, as part of the next fiscal year workplan, that
the Subcommittee continue to analyze the operational, financial impacts of the project.
DISCUSSION:
Project Procurement
During the April 22, 2021, FAC special meeting, Staff reiterated to the FAC the following
three procurement options that were previously presented by Kosmont Transaction
Services (KTS) at the February 25 meeting:
• Traditional (design-bid-build)
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o Requires bidding out most components of the project.
o May take longer to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
• Total Project Delivery
o The City is not responsible for the project installation.
o Guaranteed delivery.
o Limited to lease payment.
• Design-Build
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o One contractor to design and build.
o Streamline the process to reduce the time to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
At the April 22 meeting, the FAC was informed that the City is too far along the design
process that the options of design-build and total project delivery are no longer viable.
Therefore, the only procurement option the City has at this point is the tradi tional
C-3
approach (design-bid-build). The FAC agreed with the recommendation and did not
discuss the procurement option at the subcommittee meeting or at the May 6 follow-up
meeting.
Financing Options
At the April 22 meeting, Staff also reintroduced the following four financing options that
KTS previously presented at the February 25 meeting:
• Current Resources
o Cash reserves
o Grants
o Special revenues
• Issue Securities
o Loan
o General Obligation Bonds – requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of registered
voters
o Lease Revenue Bonds – no voter requirement
• Lease
o Direct Lease – non-tax exempt, term of less than 30 years
o Total Project Delivery – tax-exempt, 30-year term
During the discussion, FAC suggested a fifth option of private funding, such as
donations and capital campaign fundraising. Staff and a couple of FAC members
indicated that it is too late in the process to consider private funding as a financing
option for the project. However, the FAC feels that private funding should be considered
to try to replenish the CIP Fund Reserves used for the project.
After discussion ensued at the May 6 meeting, FAC agreed to finance the project from a
combination of restricted funds, CIP Fund, and loan. The Committee agreed that the
use of restricted funds for the project should be considered before using the CIP Fund
and loan. FAC also noted that the balance of the total cost of the project, after the use
of ARPA and Quimby Fund, should be split between the CIP Fund reserve and loan.
For example, if the cost for the project increased to $16 million from the current estimate
of $15.7 million, after using ARPA and Quimby Fund, the remaining balance of
$11,480,000 will be split evenly between the CIP Fund reserve and a loan.
Currently, the two restricted funds that the City can consider using for the project would
come from the anticipated funds from the anticipated ARPA and Quimby Fund. The
estimated funding from ARPA for the City is approximately $7.8 million. The estimated
fund balance in Quimby Fund on June 30, 2021 , is approximately $943,500. The FAC
recommends using up to 50% of ARPA and all the available funds from the Quimby
Fund for this project.
C-4
Table 1 below estimates how the project funding would be allocated based on the cost
estimate of $15.7 million presented at the April 6 meeting.
Table 1: Ladera Linda Funding Summary
The following discussion provides details to the above allocation.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
The ARPA was approved by Congress and subsequently signed into law by President
Biden on March 11, 2021. The relief package provides funding in several areas such as
state and local aid, education, rental assistance, and transit. Based on the preliminary
information that the City received from the Government Finance Officers Association and
the League of California Cities, the City’s allocation under the state and local fiscal aid of
$350 billion is estimated to be $7.8 million. Based on the most current information,
eligible uses may include:
• Revenue replacement for the provision of government services to the extent of
the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in the most recent fiscal year prior to the emergency;
• Premium pay for essential workers;
• Assistance to small businesses, households, and hard-hit industries, and
economic recovery
• Investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure.
The FAC recommends using up to 50% of the allocation from the ARPA to fund the
project based on the following reasons:
• The project is ready and eligible for ARPA funds under revenue replacement.
o Due to the sudden revenue loss from the TOT over the last 18 months, the
City may use ARPA funds for the purpose of revenue replacement. As
illustrated in Table 2 below, the City’s estimated TOT revenue loss is $4.5
million.
o Since over 90% of the City’s TOT is transferred to the CIP to fund capital
projects, it would be an opportunity to utilize this grant and replace the
revenue loss in the CIP caused by the pandemic.
Funding Description Amount
ARPA Fund $3,908,500 25%
Quimby Fund 943,500 6%
CIP Fund 5,338,000 34%
iBank Loan 5,500,000 35%
Total Funding $15,690,000
C-5
o Additionally, by applying for the revenue replacement section of the ARPA,
the City may have more control on how funds can be used for capital projects.
Whereas the other eligible uses are restricted for a specific purpose (i.e.,
infrastructure is listed for water, sewer, and broadband).
• Timing
o The funding for ARPA must be spent, not committed, by December 2024.
Based on the current staffing capacity and the scheduled projects from the
five-year CIP presented to the City Council on April 12, 2021, it would seem
unattainable to schedule additional capital projects and spend more than 50%
of the ARPA funds by 2024.
Table 2: Estimated Revenue Losses
*FY 2020-21 year-end estimates is based on the third quarter review as presented in
the preliminary budget report.
Quimby Fund
The Quimby Fund is a restricted fund for parks and recreation usage. Therefore, the
project is an eligible use of funds. The revenue sources for this fund are from developer
fees and dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. At the beginning of FY
2020-21, the Quimby Fund had a fund balance of almost $1.1 million and is projected to
end the year with just over $943,500. The reduction is due to the outstanding contract
balance with Johnson Favaro, the project designer. The FAC recommends using all
available funds in Quimby Fund.
Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund
The CIP Fund is the primary funding source for the City’s capital projects. At the start of
FY 2020-21, CIP had a fund balance of over $25.3 million. This fund is estimated to end
the year with $24.5 million in fund balance. The City Council Reserve Policy requires
the CIP Fund to maintain a reserve of $5 million, leaving the fund with an estimated
excess reserve of over $19.5 million on June 30, 2021.
TOTAL
REVENUE
LOSSES
FY 18-19
Actuals
FY 19-20
Actuals
FY 19-20
Losses
FY 20-21
YE Est.
FY 20-21
Losses
TOT (4,545,195) 5,645,497 3,909,799 (1,735,698) 2,836,000 (2,809,497)
Sales tax (1,186,720) 2,661,181 2,163,342 (497,839) 1,972,300 (688,881)
Permits & fees (718,290) 2,217,106 1,916,822 (300,284) 1,799,100 (418,006)
Business License (280,418) 945,792 896,166 (49,626) 715,000 (230,792)
Interest Earnings (214,586) 366,409 358,232 (8,177) 160,000 (206,409)
Rental/Leases (702,382) 478,729 189,076 (289,653) 66,000 (412,729)
PVIC Sales (174,708) 137,551 92,494 (45,057) 7,900 (129,651)
TOTAL (7,822,299) 12,452,265 9,525,931 (2,926,334) 7,556,300 (4,895,965)
C-6
CIP Fund spending can be split into two general categories: annual capital projects,
which are funded by annual transfers from the General Fund, and one-time City
Council-directed projects, which are funded by the CIP excess fund reserve. Based on
past City Council policy when Terranea was being entitled, it was determined that TOT
generated from the hotel would not support General Fund operations but rather
transferred to the CIP to fund annual capital projects. That has been the practice of the
City until FY2017-18, when the TOT began funding the increases to the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s contract. Funds for some CIP projects that were not completed in the
past were moved to the CIP Reserve, as well as the occasional transfer of funds from
the General Fund. The intent was to build a healthy reserve for unforeseen projects
and/or fund one-time City Council-directed capital projects for the public’s benefit and
use.
Staff reviewed the CIP Fund and less than 40% of the budget was typically spent by
June 30 of each fiscal year, with an average of $3.3 million spent on capital project over
the last three fiscal years between FY 2018-19 and FY 2020-21. In other words, the
remaining unspent funds were returned to the fund balance. Based on the 10-year
forecast for transfers from General Fund to CIP Fund, the average transfer is estimated
at over $3.4 million from FY 2022-23 to FY 2030-31 (Attachment A). The estimated
transfer amount includes the estimated reduction of $2 million from public safety
increases. Therefore, the FAC is comfortable with making the recommendation of using
the CIP excess reserve to fund the project and the annual payment for any debt service.
Based on the current estimated project cost of $15.7 million, the projected use of the
CIP excess reserve as recommended by the FAC, is approximately $5.3 million plus the
annual payment of any debt service for the next 10 years of just over $6.3 million for a
total use of CIP reserve of about $11.6 million (see next section on debt service). With
conservative estimates of $2,200,000 on interest earnings and $2,200,000 on additional
transfers from the General Fund over 10 years, the net impact on the CIP Fund is $7.3
million over the next 10 years, bringing the CIP Fund balance to approximately $16.8
million in FY 2030-31. This fund balance would enable the City to fund one-time
unforeseen capital project or other City Council-directed projects, such as the
Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation or Western Avenue Beautification projects, if
desired. This does not account for potential grant funds available for future capital
projects, such as the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation project as currently
being sought.
Table 3: Estimated Net Impact on the CIP Fund
FY 2020-21 Estimated ending fund balance 24,098,510$
Initial funding for Ladera Linda (5,338,000)
10-year of annual payments (6,355,400)
Projected 10-year interests 2,200,000
Projected 10-year of additional transfers 2,200,000
FY 2030-31 Estimated ending fund balance 16,805,110$
Estimated Net impact on CIP Fund (7,293,400)$
C-7
iBank Financing Process
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISFR) Program with iBank offers low-cost
public financing to state and local governments. ISRF financing is available between
$50,000 to $25 million with the loan terms up to a maximum of 30 years or the useful life
of the project.
Below is an estimated processing timeline to obtain an ISFR loan with iBank.
The first step is a preliminary review in which iBank’s credit committee reviews the
City’s financials and the proposed project to ensure that the financing complies with
underwriting criteria. Once the credit committee approves the project, the City would
receive an invitation to apply for the loan. iBank would work with Staff to draft the
resolution for the City Council’s consideration at a future meeting and assist with the
application and the preparation of the staff report for the iBank’s Board of Directors.
Once the board approves the loan, its legal counsel would prepare the legal documents
to fund the loan.
If the City Council proceeds with the FAC’s recommendation, the total estimated project
cost may have to be revised to include the cost for financing the project with iBank over
a 10-year term. The financing cost for the 10-year loan is estimated at $855,400 at this
time. The annual payment for the 10-year loan is estimated at $635,540 coming from
the CIP excess fund reserve based on a proposed $5.5 million loan.
If the City Council approves using iBank as a lending option, Staff seeks authorization
from the City Council to proceed with Step 1, preliminary review, and specific details on
the financing process. Staff would bring back a report to update the City Council on the
process and details as they become available. It is also important to note that the loan
would not be finalized until approved and accepted by the City Council at a public
meeting.
Prelimary Review
2 to 4 weeks
Receive an Invitation to
apply
Completed Application
and Board Approval
60 to 90 days
C-8
Framework to Replenish the CIP Fund
Besides reviewing, evaluating, and providing a recommendation for financing options for
the project, the FAC also recommends the combined use of the following to replenish
the CIP Fund Reserves:
• Using interest earnings from CIP’s fund balance.
• Transferring any surplus from the General Fund to the CIP Fund Reserve; and,
• Developing a capital campaign to raise private donations.
Interest Earnings
Over the last two years, the CIP Fund has earned almost $1 million in interest earnings.
In FY 2018-19, the interest earned was $509,000 and $471,000 in FY 2019-20. For the
current fiscal year, the estimated interest-earning is approximately $300,000. The
Subcommittee recommends using the interest earned to replenish the fund balance.
Staff has taken a conservative approach and projected a flat $200,000 annually in
interest earnings in the forecast model. This is to account for the timing of the
disbursement of funds on the project compared to the interest earning from the loan
disbursement and the ARPA allocation. The FAC supported this recommendation.
Surplus Transfers from the General Fund
Typically, in December, the Finance Department brings forward a staff report on the
City’s unaudited actuals of the previous fiscal year. This report highlights any
surplus/deficit in the General Fund, revenues minus expenditures. Looking back at the
last four years, the General Fund ended the year with a surplus ranging from $223,000
to $1.9 million. The estimated surplus for FY 2020-21, as presented in the preliminary
budget report, is over $700,000.
Table 4: Five-Year History of the General Fund Surplus
*FY 2020-21 surplus is an estimate based on the third quarter review in preliminary
budget report.
Based on this information, the FAC recommends transferring a portion of the surplus
calculated at year-end to the CIP Fund to replenish the excess reserve. For the purpose
of the model, Staff used $200,000 annually as the additional transfer from the General
Fund, which is the lowest surplus over five years. The FAC supported this
FY 2020-21 FY 2019-20 FY 2018-19 FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17
Revenues 28,529,200 29,499,005 31,911,048 30,682,619 29,449,666
Expenditures (27,802,800) (28,538,827) (29,201,461) (29,429,062) (27,692,362)
PO Carry-forward - (167,175) (341,432) (715,164) (963,643)
Continuing appropriation - (569,400) (400,000) (300,000) (415,000)
Surplus 726,400 223,603 1,968,155 238,393 378,661
C-9
recommendation. If acceptable, this option will be included in the year-end report that
goes to the City Council every December.
Capital Campaign
The Subcommittee also recommended the use of private donations to replenish the CIP
fund balance. The approach for this recommendation would be a more inclusive
approach by developing a donation program for the City’s various capital projects. To
encourage donations, the capital campaign could provide a donor wall and naming
opportunities pursuant to City Council Policy No. 37. Any donation received would go
directly to replenish the CIP Fund.
If acceptable, the FAC recommends that the City Council appoint a City Council
subcommittee or create a new committee and onboard a consultant to develop a capital
campaign program. At this time, the City Council may wish to have the Public Facilities
Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Alegria and Councilman Cruikshank, to serve in this
capacity.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Minor Modification No. 1
On May 5, 2021, the Director of Community Development issued a Notice of Decision
(NOD) for approval of Minor Modification No. 1 to the City Council-approved Conditional
Use Permit, Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project (Case No. PLCU2020-0007). The design
modifications include the reconfiguration of the proposed open-air restroom
configuration (individual water closets and communal wash area) into enclosed, and
separate men’s and women’s restrooms consisting of traditional stalls and washbasins,
and minor reconfiguration of the parking lot, as seen in the revised site plan below:
C-10
The NOD provides for a 15-day period to appeal the Director’s decision to the City
Council. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed,
the Director’s decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Thursday, May 20, 2021.
Project Cost Estimate Update
As a result of the approval of Minor Modification No. 1, Staff is working on estimating
the full cost of enclosing the bathrooms to accommodate a separate men’s and
women’s bathroom. At this time, the anticipated cost of enclosing the bathrooms
remains approximately $175,000 as stated in the April 6, 2021 Staff Report plus any
escalation, associated soft costs, and contingency. Additionally, Staff is working to
estimate the cost of installing security shutters on glass surfaces, which is anticipated to
be approximately $250,000 plus escalation, associated soft costs, and contingency.
In response to community feedback, Staff is working with the project’s cost estimator
(MGAC Inc.) to reformat the project cost estimate document to include more detailed
information that can be presented in a format that is easily interpreted by the general
public. The updated and re-formatted cost estimate is expected to be complete in the
next several weeks, at which time it will be made available to the public and presented
to the City Council at a future meeting.
The design of the enclosed bathrooms and security shutters, as well as the cost
estimate updates and format changes are an additional service that will require a n
amendment to the Johnson Favaro contract. This contract amendment is estimated to
be brought to City Council as early as June 2021.
In the coming weeks and months, Staff will bring other contract amendments to the City
Council as the design progresses further towards construction documents. These will
include hiring a security sub-consultant and a dry utility coordination sub-consultant,
among others. Such sub-consultants and similar contract amendments were accounted
in the overall project cost estimate presented to the City Council on April 6 and do not
represent a cost increase.
Project Construction Manager
Based on City Council directive at the April 12 CIP workshop, Staff is in the process of
publishing a request for proposal to on-board a project construction manager. Between
now and the adoption of the budget in June 2021, staff will collect proposals and
conduct selection interviews, that may include the participation on the interview panel by
the City Council Public Facilities Subcommittee, so that a professional service
agreement may be considered by the City Council soon after the budget is adopted.
C-11
Finance Advisory Committee
The Chair, Vice-Chair, and a member of the subcommittee have been invited to attend
the May 18 City Council meeting to answer any questions pertaining to their
recommendation.
KTS Consulting
On February 25, Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS) provided a high-level overview of
the procurement and financing options to the FAC. At the April 22 FAC meeting, KTS
provided Staff with three amortization schedules to finance the project with a Lease
Revenue Bond at 50%, 75%, and 100%. After comparing the cost of financing through
bond and loan, FAC recommended not to consider a bond to fund the project for the
following reasons:
• High cost of issuance
• The City would have to go through a public credit rating
• The debt amount is relatively small
• The projected interest rate is higher
Staff has provided the FAC recommendation to KTS, who suggest the City consider (1)
a private direct lending with a term of 5- to 15-years at an expected cost between
$100,000 to $125,000, or (2) a public offering with a term of 5- to 30-years with the
expected costs between $150,000 to $175,000 . Although the City may be able to obtain
a competitive interest rate, the City will have an additional cost of borrowing on top of
the interest cost. FAC recommends that the added cost associated with issuance and
the public credit rating for the amount of debt that it recommends is not worth pursuing
at this time.
Public Comments
As of May 11, the City received 34 public comments (Attachment E). The majority of the
public comments express opposition to the project and using public funds to pay for the
project.
CONCLUSION:
The FAC recommends, unanimously, that the City Council consider financing the
project using 50% of the ARPA funds, the Quimby Fund, and the remaining balance to
be split between a 10-year loan from iBank and the CIP Fund Reserve. The approval of
the funding option as proposed will not result in any tax increases to the community.
C-12
(1) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Financing 100% of the project cost
Using ARPA for loan payments up to December of 2024 and Quimby balance in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,538,510 24,546,510 24,946,510 25,346,510 25,746,510 25,150,910 23,758,210 22,370,610 20,988,310 19,611,310 18,239,810
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,557,200 2,553,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,762,424 2,753,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(2,945,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(2,945,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (130,000)(1,811,800)(1,807,300)(1,661,000)(995,600)(1,792,700)(1,787,600)(1,782,300)(1,777,000)(1,771,500)(1,765,900)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 330,000 2,011,800 2,007,300 1,861,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)130,000 1,811,800 1,807,300 1,661,000
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 (795,600)(1,592,700)(1,587,600)(1,582,300)(1,577,000)(1,571,500)(1,565,900)
Ending Fund Balance 24,538,510 24,546,510 24,946,510 25,346,510 25,746,510 25,150,910 23,758,210 22,370,610 20,988,310 19,611,310 18,239,810 16,873,910
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,538,510 19,546,510 19,946,510 20,346,510 20,746,510 20,150,910 18,758,210 17,370,610 15,988,310 14,611,310 13,239,810 11,873,910
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 440,000 872,500 1,072,500 1,272,500 1,472,500 676,900 (915,800)(2,503,400)(4,085,700)(5,662,700)(7,234,200)(8,590,100)
% of change 1.83%3.69%4.49%5.29%6.07%2.77%-3.71%-10.06%-16.29%-22.41%-28.40%-33.73%
C-13
(2) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Financing 75% of the project cost
Using ARPA for loan payments up to December of 2024 and Quimby balance in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 20,576,010 20,976,010 21,376,010 21,776,010 21,627,910 20,648,910 19,673,810 18,702,710 17,735,710 16,773,010
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (3,922,500)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (100,000)(1,393,700)(1,390,200)(1,277,700)(548,100)(1,379,000)(1,375,100)(1,371,100)(1,367,000)(1,362,700)(1,358,400)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 300,000 1,593,700 1,590,200 1,477,700 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)100,000 1,393,700 1,390,200 1,277,700
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (3,722,500)200,000 200,000 200,000 (348,100)(1,179,000)(1,175,100)(1,171,100)(1,167,000)(1,162,700)(1,158,400)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 20,576,010 20,976,010 21,376,010 21,776,010 21,627,910 20,648,910 19,673,810 18,702,710 17,735,710 16,773,010 15,814,610
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 15,576,010 15,976,010 16,376,010 16,776,010 16,627,910 15,648,910 14,673,810 13,702,710 12,735,710 11,773,010 10,814,610
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (3,098,000)(2,898,000)(2,698,000)(2,498,000)(2,846,100)(4,025,100)(5,200,200)(6,371,300)(7,538,300)(8,701,000)(9,649,400)
% of change 0.00%-13.09%-12.14%-11.21%-10.29%-11.63%-16.31%-20.91%-25.41%-29.83%-34.16%-37.89%
C-14
(3) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Financing 50% of the project cost
Using ARPA for loan payments up to December of 2024 and Quimby balance in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 16,653,510 17,053,510 17,453,510 17,853,510 18,215,110 17,707,310 17,202,010 16,699,310 16,199,410 15,712,310
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (7,845,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (65,800)(917,500)(915,200)(841,200)(38,400)(907,800)(905,300)(902,700)(899,900)(887,100)(894,300)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 265,800 1,117,500 1,115,200 1,041,200 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)65,800 917,500 915,200 841,200
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (7,645,000)200,000 200,000 200,000 161,600 (707,800)(705,300)(702,700)(699,900)(687,100)(694,300)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 16,653,510 17,053,510 17,453,510 17,853,510 18,215,110 17,707,310 17,202,010 16,699,310 16,199,410 15,712,310 15,218,010
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 11,653,510 12,053,510 12,453,510 12,853,510 13,215,110 12,707,310 12,202,010 11,699,310 11,199,410 10,712,310 10,218,010
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (7,020,500)(6,820,500)(6,620,500)(6,420,500)(6,258,900)(6,966,700)(7,672,000)(8,374,700)(9,074,600)(9,761,700)(10,246,000)
% of change 0.00%-29.65%-28.57%-27.50%-26.45%-25.57%-28.23%-30.84%-33.40%-35.90%-38.32%-40.24%
C-15
(4) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 10-year Forecast with ARPA
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
10-year loan
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 19,114,710 18,875,910 18,638,710 18,403,210 18,169,410 17,937,410 17,707,210 17,478,810 17,252,310 17,027,710
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (5,338,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (45,800)(638,800)(637,200)(635,500)(633,800)(632,000)(630,200)(628,400)(626,500)(624,600)(622,600)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (5,183,800)(438,800)(437,200)(435,500)(433,800)(432,000)(430,200)(428,400)(426,500)(424,600)(422,600)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 19,114,710 18,875,910 18,638,710 18,403,210 18,169,410 17,937,410 17,707,210 17,478,810 17,252,310 17,027,710 16,805,110
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 14,114,710 13,875,910 13,638,710 13,403,210 13,169,410 12,937,410 12,707,210 12,478,810 12,252,310 12,027,710 11,805,110
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,464,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (4,559,300)(4,998,100)(5,435,300)(5,870,800)(6,304,600)(6,736,600)(7,166,800)(7,595,200)(8,021,700)(8,446,300)(8,658,900)
% of change 0.00%-19.26%-20.94%-22.58%-24.19%-25.76%-27.30%-28.81%-30.29%-31.74%-33.16%-34.00%
C-16
(4) Capital Infrastructure Improvement Fund 15-year Forecast with ARPA
Reduced transfers in by $2M for public safety
15-year loan
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Capital
Improvement
FY 2031-32
Capital
Improvement
FY 2032-33
Capital
Improvement
FY 2033-34
Capital
Improvement
FY 2034-35
Capital
Improvement
FY 2035-36
Capital
Improvement
FY 2035-36
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 19,114,710 19,057,810 19,001,910 18,947,110 18,893,310 18,840,610 18,789,110 18,738,710 18,689,510 18,641,510 18,594,710 18,549,210 18,505,010 18,462,110 18,420,610
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 3,000,000 2,861,000 3,400,000 3,427,000 3,455,000 3,482,000 3,509,000 3,537,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000 3,565,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 3,200,000 3,061,000 3,600,000 3,627,000 3,655,000 3,682,000 3,709,000 3,737,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000 3,765,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(3,000,000) (2,861,000) (3,400,000) (3,427,000) (3,455,000) (3,482,000) (3,509,000) (3,537,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000) (3,565,000)
Ladera Linda Initial Funding (5,338,000)
Ladera Linda Annual Payment (45,800)(456,900)(455,900)(454,800)(453,800)(452,700)(451,500)(450,400)(449,200)(448,000)(446,800)(445,500)(444,200)(442,900)(441,500)(440,100)
Replenishing CIP Fund Balance 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Operating revenues generated from LL
General Fund Surplus at the end of the FY 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Fundraiser for LL
Donation for LL
Total Fiscal Impact from LL 0 (5,183,800)(256,900)(255,900)(254,800)(253,800)(252,700)(251,500)(250,400)(249,200)(248,000)(246,800)(245,500)(244,200)(242,900)(241,500)(240,100)
Ending Fund Balance 24,098,510 19,114,710 19,057,810 19,001,910 18,947,110 18,893,310 18,840,610 18,789,110 18,738,710 18,689,510 18,641,510 18,594,710 18,549,210 18,505,010 18,462,110 18,420,610 18,380,510
Council Reserve (5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)(5,000,000)
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 14,114,710 14,057,810 14,001,910 13,947,110 13,893,310 13,840,610 13,789,110 13,738,710 13,689,510 13,641,510 13,594,710 13,549,210 13,505,010 13,462,110 13,420,610 13,380,510
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010 25,674,010 25,874,010 26,074,010 26,274,010 26,474,010 26,674,010
Changes in ending fund balance 0 (4,559,300)(4,816,200)(5,072,100)(5,326,900)(5,580,700)(5,833,400)(6,084,900)(6,335,300)(6,584,500)(6,832,500)(7,079,300)(7,324,800)(7,569,000)(7,811,900)(8,053,400)(8,293,500)
% of change 0.00%-19.26%-20.17%-21.07%-21.94%-22.80%-23.64%-24.46%-25.27%-26.05%-26.82%-27.57%-28.31%-29.03%-29.73%-30.42%-31.09%
C-17
$5,500,000
2.50%Loan or Lease Loan
0.30%
10/1/2021 Fiscal Year Ends June 30
First Interest Only Pmt Date 2/1/2022
First Principal Pmt Date 8/1/2022
10
Amortization Period 10
- -
Payment
Date
Ending Principal
Balance
Principal
Payment
Interest
Payment
Total Principal &
Interest Annual Fee Total Payment Total Payment Fiscal
Year Ending June 30
1-Oct-2021 $5,500,000.00
1-Feb-2022 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33
1-Aug-2022 $5,009,076.80 $490,923.20 $68,750.00 $559,673.20 $16,500.00 $576,173.20
1-Feb-2023 $62,613.46 $62,613.46 $62,613.46 $638,786.66
1-Aug-2023 $4,505,880.53 $503,196.28 $62,613.46 $565,809.74 $15,027.23 $580,836.97
1-Feb-2024 $56,323.51 $56,323.51 $56,323.51 $637,160.47
1-Aug-2024 $3,990,104.34 $515,776.18 $56,323.51 $572,099.69 $13,517.64 $585,617.33
1-Feb-2025 $49,876.30 $49,876.30 $49,876.30 $635,493.64
1-Aug-2025 $3,461,433.75 $528,670.59 $49,876.30 $578,546.89 $11,970.31 $590,517.21
1-Feb-2026 $43,267.92 $43,267.92 $43,267.92 $633,785.13
1-Aug-2026 $2,919,546.40 $541,887.35 $43,267.92 $585,155.28 $10,384.30 $595,539.58
1-Feb-2027 $36,494.33 $36,494.33 $36,494.33 $632,033.91
1-Aug-2027 $2,364,111.86 $555,434.54 $36,494.33 $591,928.87 $8,758.64 $600,687.51
1-Feb-2028 $29,551.40 $29,551.40 $29,551.40 $630,238.90
1-Aug-2028 $1,794,791.46 $569,320.40 $29,551.40 $598,871.80 $7,092.34 $605,964.13
1-Feb-2029 $22,434.89 $22,434.89 $22,434.89 $628,399.03
1-Aug-2029 $1,211,238.05 $583,553.41 $22,434.89 $605,988.30 $5,384.37 $611,372.68
1-Feb-2030 $15,140.48 $15,140.48 $15,140.48 $626,513.15
1-Aug-2030 $613,095.80 $598,142.25 $15,140.48 $613,282.72 $3,633.71 $616,916.44
1-Feb-2031 $7,663.70 $7,663.70 $7,663.70 $624,580.13
1-Aug-2031 $613,095.80 $7,663.70 $620,759.50 $1,839.29 $622,598.79
$622,598.79
$5,500,000.00 $761,315.31 $6,261,315.31 $94,107.84 $6,355,423.15 $6,355,423.15Total Payments:
Applicant/Project Name
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Annual Fee
Funding Date
Loan Years
City of Ranchos Palos Verdes - Ladera Park
Note: The Interest Rate shown in this example has not
been quoted or approved and represents an indictive rate
based on similar loans.
C-18
$5,500,000
2.50%Loan or Lease Loan
0.30%
10/1/2021 Fiscal Year Ends June 30
First Interest Only Pmt Date 2/1/2022
First Principal Pmt Date 8/1/2022
15
Amortization Period 15
- -
Payment
Date
Ending Principal
Balance
Principal
Payment
Interest
Payment
Total Principal &
Interest Annual Fee Total Payment Total Payment Fiscal
Year Ending June 30
1-Oct-2021 $5,500,000.00
1-Feb-2022 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33 $45,833.33
1-Aug-2022 $5,193,284.49 $306,715.51 $68,750.00 $375,465.51 $16,500.00 $391,965.51
1-Feb-2023 $64,916.06 $64,916.06 $64,916.06 $456,881.56
1-Aug-2023 $4,878,901.10 $314,383.40 $64,916.06 $379,299.45 $15,579.85 $394,879.31
1-Feb-2024 $60,986.26 $60,986.26 $60,986.26 $455,865.57
1-Aug-2024 $4,556,658.11 $322,242.98 $60,986.26 $383,229.24 $14,636.70 $397,865.95
1-Feb-2025 $56,958.23 $56,958.23 $56,958.23 $454,824.17
1-Aug-2025 $4,226,359.06 $330,299.06 $56,958.23 $387,257.28 $13,669.97 $400,927.26
1-Feb-2026 $52,829.49 $52,829.49 $52,829.49 $453,756.74
1-Aug-2026 $3,887,802.53 $338,556.53 $52,829.49 $391,386.02 $12,679.08 $404,065.10
1-Feb-2027 $48,597.53 $48,597.53 $48,597.53 $452,662.63
1-Aug-2027 $3,540,782.08 $347,020.45 $48,597.53 $395,617.98 $11,663.41 $407,281.38
1-Feb-2028 $44,259.78 $44,259.78 $44,259.78 $451,541.16
1-Aug-2028 $3,185,086.13 $355,695.96 $44,259.78 $399,955.73 $10,622.35 $410,578.08
1-Feb-2029 $39,813.58 $39,813.58 $39,813.58 $450,391.66
1-Aug-2029 $2,820,497.77 $364,588.36 $39,813.58 $404,401.93 $9,555.26 $413,957.19
1-Feb-2030 $35,256.22 $35,256.22 $35,256.22 $449,213.41
1-Aug-2030 $2,446,794.71 $373,703.06 $35,256.22 $408,959.29 $8,461.49 $417,420.78
1-Feb-2031 $30,584.93 $30,584.93 $30,584.93 $448,005.71
1-Aug-2031 $2,063,749.07 $383,045.64 $30,584.93 $413,630.57 $7,340.38 $420,970.96
1-Feb-2032 $25,796.86 $25,796.86 $25,796.86 $446,767.82
1-Aug-2032 $1,671,127.28 $392,621.78 $25,796.86 $418,418.64 $6,191.25 $424,609.89
1-Feb-2033 $20,889.09 $20,889.09 $20,889.09 $445,498.98
1-Aug-2033 $1,268,689.96 $402,437.33 $20,889.09 $423,326.42 $5,013.38 $428,339.80
1-Feb-2034 $15,858.62 $15,858.62 $15,858.62 $444,198.42
1-Aug-2034 $856,191.70 $412,498.26 $15,858.62 $428,356.88 $3,806.07 $432,162.95
1-Feb-2035 $10,702.40 $10,702.40 $10,702.40 $442,865.35
1-Aug-2035 $433,380.98 $422,810.72 $10,702.40 $433,513.11 $2,568.58 $436,081.69
1-Feb-2036 $5,417.26 $5,417.26 $5,417.26 $441,498.95
1-Aug-2036 $433,380.98 $5,417.26 $438,798.25 $1,300.14 $440,098.39
$440,098.39
$5,500,000.00 $1,140,315.96 $6,640,315.96 $139,587.91 $6,779,903.87 $6,779,903.87
Funding Date
Loan Years
Total Payments:
Applicant/Project Name City of Ranchos Palos Verdes - Ladera Park
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Annual Fee
Note: The Interest Rate shown in this example has not
been quoted or approved and represents an indictive rate
based on similar loans.
C-19
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 04/22/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to discuss and provide recommendations on the
financing options for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Discuss and provide recommendations on the financing options for the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. City Council April 6, 2021 Staff Report (page A-1)
B. Kosmont Transaction Services Presentation (page B-1)
C. City Council April 12, 2021 Staff Report (page C-1)
D. Debt Management Policy (page D-1)
E. Sample Debt Schedule with iBank (page E -1)
F. Sample Amortization Schedule for Bond (page F-1)
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 2021, the City Council approved the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park project. The staff report for the April 6 meeting is attached (Attachment A). The
summary of the approval are as follows:
• Adopted Resolution No. 2021-XX upholding the Planning Commission-
approved planning entitlements, with conditions of approval, consisting of
Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review
application findings (planning entitlements) thereby approving the project. In its
decision, certain conditions were modified including amending Condition No.
31 to add security roll-down gates above and around the bathroom sink area
to fully enclose the bathroom during non-operational afterhours.
C-20
• Directed Staff to proceed with the completion of construction documents and
authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans and
specifications for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project.
• Directed Staff to relocate and optimize handicap parking spaces closer to the
building and to explore cost and effective ways to install exterior shutters over
glass surfaces to provide necessary security.
Based on the City Council directions on the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
project, the financing options for the project are presented tonight for the Finance
Advisory Committee in accordance with FY 2020-21 Workplan No. 9c that states:
Receive a presentation and make recommendations on the Ladera Linda Community
Park and the associated financial implication.
In line with this goal, on February 25, 2021, the FAC received a presentation from
Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS) on the procurement and financing options for the
project (Attachment B). Below is a summary of the procurement and financing options as
presented.
Procurement Options
• Traditional
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o Requires bidding out most components of the project.
o May take longer to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
• Total Project Delivery
o The City is not responsible for the project installation.
o Guaranteed delivery.
o Limited to lease payment.
• Design-Build
o The City’s responsibility is from start to finish of the project.
o One contractor to design and build.
o Streamline process to reduce the time to complete.
o Flexible financing options.
Due to the size of the project, the Public-Private Partnership (P3) model was not
presented as a procurement option. A desirable P3 project for most developers would
have to be in the range of $50 million or more. Moreover, since most of the design work
has been completed, the project would be less desirable for a P3 developer.
C-21
Financing Options
• Current Resources
o Cash reserves
o Grants
o Special revenues
• Issue Securities
o Loan
o General Obligation Bonds – requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of
registered voters.
o Lease Revenue Bonds – no voter requirement
• Lease
o Direct Lease – non-tax exempt, term of less than 30 years
o Total Project Delivery – tax exempt, 30-year term
As reported to the City Council on April 9, the current, all-in, estimated cost for the project
is almost $15.7 million (Attachment A). The estimated fund balance of the Capital
Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund on June 30, 2021 is just under $24.1 million. After
applying the City Council Reserve Policy of $5 million, the total excess reserve is almost
$18.7 million. As discussed in the April 12, 2021 CIP Budget staff report (Attachment C),
the projects on the 5-year capital improvement plan total almost $52 million with an annual
revenue transferring from the General Fund ranges between $3 to $5 million over the next
five years.
Besides the CIP Fund, the City’s Quimby Fund can also be used for this project. Quimby
Fund is funded by the developer fees or dedication of land for park and recreation
purposes. The estimated fund balance for Quimby Fund at June 30, 2021 is just under
$950,000.
DISCUSSION:
Evaluating Financing Options
After years of project planning that included many community engagement and public
meetings, on April 6, the City Council approved the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park project. Accordingly, if public financing is considered, the City would use the Debt
Management Policy (Attachment D) for guidance. The policy was recommended by FAC
and adopted by the City Council in June 2015. Based on the policy, the City will evaluate
the use of debt in-lieu of pay-as-you-go financing based on the following criteria:
1. Current reserves or projected revenues are adequate to fund the project;
2. Proposed debt levels would have a deleterious effect on the City’s credit position
or rating; and
3. Credit market conditions are unstable or present d ifficulty in marketing the
proposed debt.
C-22
Moreover, the policy outlines the following six factors favoring the use of debt:
1. Revenues are deemed to be stable and reliable enough to support the proposed
debt at investment grade rating levels;
2. The nature of the financed project will support investment grade ratings:
3. Credit market conditions present favorable interest rates and demand for financing
such as the City’s;
4. The proposed project is required by the state or federal government and present
resources are insufficient or unavailable to fund the project;
5. The proposed project is immediately required to meet or relieve capacity needs
and current resources are insufficient or unavailable; and
6. The estimated useful life of the asset to be financed is greater than 5 years.
Financing Options
As presented by KTS on February 25, the two procurement options available for this
project are traditional and total lease delivery. Depending on the procurement option, the
financing options may be different. For the purpose of this meeting, staff has included all
the financing options available for discussion.
Cash/Current Resources
This option is to utilize existing cash resources to fund the entire project. At the end of FY
2020-21, the City is estimated to have over $24 million in the CIP Fund and less than a
$1 million in the Quimby Fund. The CIP Fund is used for the City’s infrastructure projects
with many competing projects that includes public right-of-way, expansion and
rehabilitation of facilities and infrastructure. As stated earlier, over the next five years, the
CIP projects are estimated to reach at $52 million while only anticipating between $3-$5
million in revenues. The Quimby Fund is restricted to park improvements and the only
source of revenue is through development impact fees, dedications, and exactions.
This option would almost deplete the fund balance and significantly reduce the available
funding for other planned capital projects.
Loan/Financing
This option is a traditional financing approach which may be available through iBank.
iBank is the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. iBank’s mission
is to provide financial assistance and support infrastructure and economic development
in California. The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISFR) Program is a low-cost public
financing to state and local government. ISRF financing is available between $50,000 to
$25 million with the loan terms up to a maximum of 30 years or the useful life of the
project. A traditional infrastructure loan with iBank can take up to six months until the loan
is finalized, and the fund is disbursed to the City.
C-23
Below is a process timeline to obtain a ISFR loan with iBank.
The first step is preliminary review where iBank’s credit committee reviews the City’s
financials and project to ensure that the financing complies with their underwriting
criteria. Once the credit committee approves the project, the City will receive an
invitation to apply for the loan. At that time, staff will bring forward a resolution to the
City Council to proceed with the loan application. iBank will work with staff to draft the
resolution for the City Council and assist with the application and the preparation of the
staff report for the iBank’s Board of Directors. Once the board approves the loan, their
legal counsel will prepare the legal documents to fund the loan.
Staff obtained a sample financing cost (Attachment E) from iBank. Based on the
amortization schedule, for a debt of $15.6 million with a 10, 20, and 30 years term, the
financing costs could range from $2.4 million up to $7.5 million and the annual
payments range from $1.7 million down to $740,000 depending on the term.
Lease Revenue Bonds
This option is a traditional approach in which public agencies may raise capital by creating
a lease/leaseback structure between the City and its public finance authority. This option
does not have voter requirements like a general municipal obligation bond (see below)
and there is a direct access to capital markets based on City’s credit. This process takes
about 90 - 120 days and assumes the issuance will ultimately be a Lease Revenue Bond
or a Certificate of Participation. This option will require a consultant such as KTS and a
bond counsel to support the City with the process. The following are highlights of the
process:
Prelimary Review
2 to 4 weeks
Receive an Invitation
to apply
Completed
Application and
Board Approval
60 to 90 days
C-24
The preparation stage includes the City Council directing staff to move forward with
preparing the authorization package, forming a bond counsel, drafting the transaction
documents, determining the bond size, term, and repayment structure, and apply for
bond rating. The preparation stage typically takes 45-60 days but could take as long as
90 days. Once the authorization package is ready, it goes back to the City Council for
approval to proceed with the bond sales. The bond sales typically begin two weeks after
approval and close within a day or two. Once the bond sale close s, it takes about two
weeks for the legal filing and the funds disbursed to the City.
KTS estimates the financing cost to issue a bond ranges between $4.2 million at 50%
financing to $8.5 million at 100% financing. A sample amortization schedule is in
attachment F. KTS will be invited to present a more detailed process to the City Council
and the community if this option is selected as a recommendation to move forward with
financing for the project.
General Municipal Obligation Bond (GOB)
This option is a tax levy to repay GOB issued to pay costs of procurement. This option
requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the electorates. Since this option requires a tax levy
on property owners to repay, this option is not considered a preferred option for this
project.
Financial Implications
Project Costs
As presented in the April 6 City Council staff report (Attachment A), the City has spent
almost $550,000 and has an outstanding commitment of almost $300,000 on the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park project. Table 1 below illustrates a summary of the
year-to-date expenditures and commitments.
Preparation
45 -60 days
Council
Approval
Bond Sales
15 -30 days
C-25
Table 1: Year-to-Date Expenditures and Commitments
The estimated total construction cost for both the community center building and park
grounds is approximately $15.7 million. This cost includes the construction costs,
escalation costs, and soft costs associated with the project. The escalation cost of
approximately $550,000 is included in the estimate with a projected construction start
date of December 2021. The projected escalation cost per month is approximately
$31,000 for each month delay from the December 2021 start date.
Table 2 below provides a summary of the total estimated project cost based on the
project scope as approved by the Planning Commission.
YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES Amount Funding
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech 62,883$ 334 - Quimby
Richard Fisher and Associates - Master Plan 184,045$ 334 - Quimby
Priority One Environmental - Environmental Review 1,500$ 334 - Quimby
Willdan - traffic study for PC meeting 10,175$ 101 - General Fund
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 3,599$ 101 - General Fund
Johnson Favaro - Design 263,131$ 334 - Quimby
Cal-Water - water pressure fire flow 525$ 334 - Quimby
Kosmont - Financial services 23,277$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 549,135$
OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech -$ 334 - Quimby
Johnson Favaro - Design 290,069$ 334 - Quimby
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 8,006$ 101 - General Fund
Kosmont - Financial services 1,723$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 299,798$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS 848,933$
YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND Amount
334 - Quimby 802,153$
101 - General Fund 46,780$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND 848,933$
C-26
+
+
+
Table 2: Total Estimated Construction Cost
Annual Maintenance and Operation
Staff estimates the operating and maintenance costs for the new facility and park to be
less than $240,000. The estimate includes staffing, supplies, utilities, maintenance,
playground equipment repair, and fuel modification. Due to the health emergency order
and the shutdown of park facilities, staffing and supplies for FY 2020-21 is lower than a
typical year. Staff anticipates that the new facility will require more staffing (as
previously reported) and supplies. However, staff anticipates that the newer facility will
not have the same maintenance needs and will more energy efficiency, so staff is
projecting these to remain flat or just a modest increase. Table 3 below illustrates the
increase of the operating and maintenance budget of the new facility to FY 2020 -21.
HARD COSTS Amount
Community Center (enclosed areas and covered areas) 5,700,000$
Sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep, etc.) 6,700,000$
Furnishings, fixtures, equipment (FFEs)300,000$
Sub-total of construction costs 12,700,000$
Construction contigency (5%)640,000$
Total estimated construction costs 13,340,000$
SOFT COSTS
Construction management (5%)640,000$
Construction inspection (7.5%)950,000$
Permitting (2%)250,000$
Hazardous materials abatement (1%)130,000$
Engineering support during construction (3%)380,000$
Total estimated soft costs 2,350,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 15,690,000$
C-27
Table 3: Proposed Operating & Maintenance Costs
Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund
Staff has prepared a 10-year forecast (Table 4) for CIP Fund using the following
assumptions:
• Transfer-in is capped at $5.5 million and does not include the reduction of
Public Safety.
• TOT transfer in from the General Fund is for the annual CIP projects.
• Interest revenue is capped at $200K.
Based on these factor, CIP Fund is projected to increase by approximately $1.8 million
or 7.6% over the 10 years period.
Table 5: CIP 10-year Fund Balance Forecast
FY 2020-21 Proposed Increase
Salaries & benefits 47,400 127,300 79,900
Supplies 1,000 6,500 5,500
Utilities 28,200 27,700 (500)
Maintenance 115,000 76,800 (38,200)
TOTAL 191,600 238,300 46,700
Capital
Improvement
FY 2020-21
Capital
Improvement
FY 2021-22
Capital
Improvement
FY 2022-23
Capital
Improvement
FY 2023-24
Capital
Improvement
FY 2024-25
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 25,344,808 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010
Add: Revenues 205,224 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 1,117,200 2,075,500 2,975,000 4,105,000 5,010,000
Total Revenues 1,322,424 2,275,500 3,175,000 4,305,000 5,210,000
Less: Capital Project (2,568,722)(2,700,000) (2,975,000) (4,105,000) (5,010,000)
Less: Operating Expenses 0 - - - -
Less: Transfers Out 0 - - - -
Total Expenditures (2,568,722)(2,700,000) (2,975,000) (4,105,000) (5,010,000)
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,098,510 23,674,010 23,874,010 24,074,010 24,274,010
Reserve Policy 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Excess Reserve 19,098,510 18,674,010 18,874,010 19,074,010 19,274,010
Capital
Improvement
FY 2025-26
Capital
Improvement
FY 2026-27
Capital
Improvement
FY 2027-28
Capital
Improvement
FY 2028-29
Capital
Improvement
FY 2029-30
Capital
Improvement
FY 2030-31
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1 24,274,010 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010
Add: Revenues 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Add: Transfers in 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000
Total Revenues 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000 5,690,000
Less: Capital Project (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000)
Less: Operating Expenses - - - - - -
Less: Transfers Out - - - - - -
Total Expenditures (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000) (5,490,000)
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30 24,474,010 24,674,010 24,874,010 25,074,010 25,274,010 25,474,010
Reserve Policy 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Excess Reserve 19,474,010 19,674,010 19,874,010 20,074,010 20,274,010 20,474,010
C-28
Financing Costs
Based on the estimated $15.7 million all-in cost of the project, and the projected operating
and maintenance expenses of approximated $238,000 per year, the financing cost for the
use of debt ranges between $2.4 million and $8.5 million depending the type, amount,
and term of the debt. The table below summarizes the cost of financing the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project.
Table 6: Summary of the Financing Costs
CONCLUSION:
As part of the FAC’s Work Plan and the City Council directions, Staff seeks FAC’s
recommendations on the Ladera Linda Community Park’s financing options and the
associated financial implications. The Committee’s recommendations and feedback will
be reported to the City Council on May 18, 2021.
50% Financing 75% Financing 100% Financing
10-years Loan 2,426,291
20-years Loan 4,878,573
30-years Loan 7,506,127
30-years Bond 4,290,150 6,393,000 8,500,950
C-29
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 05/06/2021
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a report from the Finance Advisory
Subcommittee on the financing option recommendations for the Ladera Linda Park and
Community Center Project.
RECOMMENDED FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION:
1. Review, discuss, and approve the Finance Advisory Subcommittee’s
recommendations for financing options on the Ladera Linda Park and Community
Center Project and direct Staff to forward the recommendations to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: George Lewis, Finance Advisory Committee Vice-Chair
John MacAllister, Finance Advisory Committee Member
Kevin Yourman, Finance Advisory Committee Member
APPROVED BY: Same as above
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Finance Forecast (page A-1)
B. iBank Amortization Schedule (page B-1)
BACKGROUND:
On April 22, 2021, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) held a special meeting to
review and discuss the financing options for the Ladera Linda Park and Community
Center Project. At the conclusion of the meeting, FAC formed two Subcommittees to
review the financing options and operating financial impacts of the project. The
Subcommittee Members for the financing options are Vice-Chair Lewis, Member
MacAllister, and Member Yourman. The operating financial impacts of the project will be
reviewed by Member Vlaco and Member Seal. Also, the Subcommittees were asked to
bring back recommendations for FAC’s review and consideration at a special meeting
on May 6, 2021.
C-30~ vtr
On April 27, 2021, Member MacAllister and Member Yourman met with Director Nguyen
to discuss various options and ideas related to financing options. At the conclusion of
the meeting, Member MacAllister and Member Yourman recommended the following:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project.
• Use Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund to fund 50% of the project .
balance
• Finance 50% of the remaining balance with iBank.
• Establish a plan to replenish the CIP Fund:
o Private funding campaign
o Interest earnings
o General Fund surplus
o Operating revenues from Ladera Linda
The recommendations were shared with Vice-Chair Lewis on April 28, 2021 and Vice-
Chair is in agreement with the recommendations across the board. The only suggestion
that Vice-Chair Lewis suggested is to expand the fund balance change, which shows up
as only one line in the annual report, to show all affected funds. By layering in first the
expected $855,000 of annual repayment for the Park, and then imagining the Civic
center, Vice-Chair Lewis suggested that this would show the reduction in the "change in
net position" line, or basically the city's gain/loss line for the year.
DISCUSSION:
I. Financing Options Overview
As presented at the April 6, 2021 City Council meeting, the total, all -in, estimated project
cost is $15.7 million. The financing Subcommittee’s recommendation to fund the project
includes a combination of restricted funds, CIP Fund, and a loan to finance the Ladera
Linda Park and Community Center Project. There was an agreement amongst the
Subcommittee Members that the use of restricted funds for the project should be
considered before using CIP Fund and financing options.
Currently, the two restricted funds that the City can consider are the anticipated funds
from the upcoming American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Quimby Fund. The estimated
funding from ARPA for the City is approximately $7.8 million. The estimate d fund balance
in Quimby Fund on June 30, 2021 is approximately $943,000. The financing
Subcommittee is recommending using up to 50% of ARPA and all the available funds
from the Quimby Fund for this project. Table 1 below is summary of the Subcommittee’s
recommended financing options and a detailed explanation of the recommendations is
provided next.
C-31
Table 1: Ladera Linda Funding Summary
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
The ARPA was approved by Congress and subsequently signed into law by President
Biden on March 11, 2021. The relief package provides funding in several areas such as
state and local aid, education, rental assistance, and transit. Based on the preliminary
information that the City received from the Government Finance Officers Association and
the League of California Cities, the City’s allocation under the state and local fiscal aid of
$350 billion is estimated to be at $7.8 million. Based on the most current information,
eligible uses may include:
• Revenue replacement for the provision of government services to the extent the
reduction in revenue due the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in the most recent fiscal year prior to the emergency.
• Premium pay for essential workers
• Assistance to small businesses, households, and hard-hit industries, and
economic recovery
• Investments in water, sewer and broadband infrastructure.
The financing Subcommittee recommended using up to 50% of the allocation from the
ARPA to fund the project based on the following reasons:
• Project is ready and eligible for ARPA funds under revenue replacement.
o Due to the sudden revenue loss from the Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) over the last 18 months, the City may use ARPA funds for the
purpose of revenue replacement. As illustrated on Table 2 below, the
City’s estimated revenue loss is $4.7 million.
o Since over 90% of the City’s TOT is transferred to the CIP to fund
capital projects, it would be an opportunity to utilize this grant and
replace the revenue loss in CIP caused by the pandemic.
o Additionally, by applying for the revenue replacement section of the
ARPA, the City may have more control on how funds can be u sed
for capital projects. Whereas the other eligible uses are restricted for
Funding Description Amount
ARPA Fund $3,908,500 25%
Quimby Fund 943,500 6%
CIP Fund 5,338,000 34%
iBank Loan 5,500,000 35%
Total Funding $15,690,000
C-32
a specific purpose (i.e. infrastructure is listed for water, sewer, and
broadband).
• Timing.
o The funding for ARPA must be spent by December of 2024. Based
on the current staffing capacity and the scheduled projects from the
5-year CIP presented to the City Council on April 12, 2021, it would
seem unattainable to schedule additional capital projects and spend
more than 50% of the ARPA funds by 2024.
Table 2: Estimated Revenue Losses
Quimby Fund
The Quimby Fund is a restricted fund for parks and recreation usage, therefore, the
Ladera Linda project is an eligible use of funds . The revenue sources for this fund are
from developer fees and dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. At the
beginning of FY 2020-21, Quimby Fund has a fund balance of almost $1.1 million and
projected to end the year with just over $943,000. The financing Subcommittee
recommended to use all available funds in Quimby CIP Fund.
Capital Infrastructure Program Fund
The Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund is the primary funding source for the City’s
capital projects. At the start of FY 2020-21, CIP has a fund balance of over $25 million.
This fund is estimated to end the year with $24.1 million in fund balance. The City Council
Reserve Policy requires CIP Fund to maintain a reserve of $5 million, leaving the fund
with an excess reserve of over $19 million.
Staff reviewed the total CIP projects funded by CIP and other Special Revenue Funds in
the last three fiscal years. As shown in tables below, less than 50% of the budget for
capital projects was spent by June 30. When reviewing the CIP fund only, less than 40%
of budget was spent by June 30, with an average of $3.3 million spent from FY 2018-19
to FY 2020-21.
TOTAL
REVENUE
LOSSES
FY 18-19
Actuals
FY 19-20
Actuals
FY 19-20
Losses
FY 20-21
YE Est.
FY 20-21
Losses
TOT (4,681,195) 5,645,497 3,909,799 (1,735,698) 2,700,000 (2,945,497)
Sales tax (1,186,720) 2,661,181 2,163,342 (497,839) 1,972,300 (688,881)
Permits & fees (718,290) 2,217,106 1,916,822 (300,284) 1,799,100 (418,006)
Business License (280,418) 945,792 896,166 (49,626) 715,000 (230,792)
Interest Earnings (214,586) 366,409 358,232 (8,177) 160,000 (206,409)
Rental/Leases (702,382) 478,729 189,076 (289,653) 66,000 (412,729)
PVIC Sales (174,708) 137,551 92,494 (45,057) 7,900 (129,651)
TOTAL (7,958,299) 12,452,265 9,525,931 (2,926,334) 7,420,300 (5,031,965)
C-33
Table 3a: FY 2018-19 CIP Actuals
Table 3b: FY 2019-20 CIP Actuals
FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY 2018-19 % SPENT
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION BUDGET REV. BUDGET ACTUAL REV. BUDGET
202 GAS TAX - - - 0.00%
211 1911 ACT STREET LIGHTING - 1,523,276 862,315 56.61%
212 BEAUTIFICATION - 405,585 378,754 93.38%
215 PROPOSITION C 500,000 1,100,000 639,011 58.09%
216 PROPOSITION A 500,000 500,000 44,108 8.82%
220 MEASURE R - 2,550,000 2,254,152 88.40%
225 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT - - - 0.00%
228 DONOR RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTION - 238,409 137,683 57.75%
310 CDBG - 361,683 193,586 53.52%
330 CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURES PROJEC 7,105,100 8,424,151 3,291,424 39.07%
331 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - 0.00%
332 STATE GRANTS - 965,645 408,060 42.26%
334 QUIMBY PARK DEVELOPMENT - 1,026,436 145,474 14.17%
340 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - - 0.00%
TOTAL CIP 8,105,100 17,095,184 8,354,567 48.87%
FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 % SPENT
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION BUDGET REV. BUDGET ACTUAL REV. BUDGET
202 GAS TAX 1,500,000 2,215,166 285,516 12.89%
211 1911 ACT STREET LIGHTING - 592,148 509,249 86.00%
212 BEAUTIFICATION - - - 0.00%
215 PROPOSITION C 640,000 1,111,401 698,806 62.88%
216 PROPOSITION A 450,000 1,155,267 458,736 39.71%
220 MEASURE R 700,000 1,256,006 72,167 5.75%
225 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT - 450,000 - 0.00%
228 DONOR RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTION - - - 0.00%
310 CDBG 150,600 346,095 211,806 61.20%
330 CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURES PROJEC 9,917,000 13,012,768 4,652,908 35.76%
331 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - 0.00%
332 STATE GRANTS - 557,206 277,373 49.78%
334 QUIMBY PARK DEVELOPMENT - 846,624 545,813 64.47%
340 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - - 0.00%
TOTAL CIP 13,357,600 21,542,681 7,712,375 35.80%
C-34
Table 3c: FY 2019-20 CIP Actuals
Based on the next ten (10) year forecast for transfers from General Fund to CIP Fund,
the average transfers is estimated at over $3.4 million from FY 2022 -23 to FY 2030-31
(Attachment A). The estimated transfer amount includes the estimated reduction of $2
million from the public safety increases. Therefore, the financing Subcommittee is
comfortable with making the recommendation of using the about $5.3 million in fund
balance in CIP to fund the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project.
iBank Loan Process
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISFR) Program with iBank is a low-cost public
financing to state and local government. ISRF financing is available between $50,000 to
$25 million with the loan terms up to a maximum of 30 years or the useful life of the
project.
FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 YTD % SPENT
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION BUDGET REV. BUDGET ACTUAL REV. BUDGET
202 GAS TAX - 1,899,490 1,619,127 85.24%
211 1911 ACT STREET LIGHTING 342,000 408,540 82,735 20.25%
212 BEAUTIFICATION - - - 0.00%
215 PROPOSITION C 945,000 950,379 2,694 0.28%
216 PROPOSITION A - 647,530 463,842 71.63%
220 MEASURE R 450,000 1,033,802 364,626 35.27%
225 ABALONE COVE SEWER DISTRICT - - - 0.00%
228 DONOR RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTION - - - 0.00%
310 CDBG 150,600 338,999 20,969 6.19%
330 CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURES PROJEC 2,521,000 3,767,094 761,469 20.21%
331 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - 0.00%
332 STATE GRANTS - 220,826 49,208 22.28%
334 QUIMBY PARK DEVELOPMENT - 300,790 14,740 4.90%
340 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - - 0.00%
TOTAL CIP 4,408,600 9,567,448 3,379,410 35.32%
C-35
Below is a process timeline to obtain a ISFR loan with iBank.
The first step is preliminary review where iBank’s credit committee reviews the City’s
financials and project to ensure that the financing complies with their underwriting
criteria. Once the credit committee approves the project, the City will receive an
invitation to apply for the loan. At that time, staff will bring forward a resolution to the
City Council to proceed with the loan application. iBank will work with staff to draft the
resolution for the City Council and assist with the application and the preparation of the
staff report for the iBank’s Board of Directors. Once the board approves the loan, their
legal counsel will prepare the legal documents to fund the loan.
The table below summarized the financing costs and annual payment between the two
terms.
Table 4: iBank Financing Summary
Description 10-year 15-year
Annual payment $635,500 $452,000
Total interest 761,000 1.14 M
Total service fees 94,100 139,600
Total payments 6.35M 6.78M
Total costs of financing $855,000 $1.28M
Prelimary Review
2 to 4 weeks
Receive an Invitation
to apply
Completed
Application and
Board Approval
60 to 90 days
C-36
Replenishing the CIP Fund
Besides reviewing, evaluating, and providing a recommendation for the financing options
for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project, the financing Subcommittee
also recommended the following options to replenish the use of CIP Fund:
• Interest earnings from CIP’s fund balance.
• Additional transfers from the General Fund from surplus.
• Private funding.
Interest Earnings
Over the last two years, CIP Fund has earned almost $1 million in interest earnings. In
FY 2018-19, the interest earned is $509,000 and $471,000 in FY 2019-20. For the current
fiscal year, the estimated interest earnings are approximately $300,0000. The
Subcommittee recommends using the interest earning to replenish the fund balance. Staff
has taken a conservative approach and projected a flat $200,000 in interest earnings in
the forecast model. This is to account for the timing of the disbursement of funds on the
project compared to the interest earning from the loan disbursement and the ARPA
allocation. The Subcommittee has also supported this estimate.
Additional Transfers from the General Fund
Typically, in December, the Finance Department brings forward a staff report on the City’s
unaudited actuals of the previous fiscal year. This report highlights any surplus/deficit in
the General Fund, revenues minus expenditures. Looking back at the last four years, the
General Fund ended year with a surplus ranging from $223,000 to $1.9 million. The
estimated surplus for FY 2020-21 as presented at the budget workshop is over $800,000.
Table 9: Five-Year History of the General Fund Surplus
*FY 2020-21 surplus is an estimate based on the mid-year report.
Based on this information, the Subcommittee recommends transferring a portion of the
surplus calculated at year-end to be transferred to the CIP Fund to replenish the fund
balance. For the purpose of the model, Staff used $200,000 as the additional transfer
from the General Fund, which is the lowest surplus over five years. The Subcommittee
also supported this estimate.
FY 2020-21 FY 2019-20 FY 2018-19 FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17
Revenues 27,978,100 29,499,005 31,911,048 30,682,619 29,449,666
Expenditures (27,122,785) (28,538,827) (29,201,461) (29,429,062) (27,692,362)
PO Carry-forward - (167,175) (341,432) (715,164) (963,643)
Continuing appropriation - (569,400) (400,000) (300,000) (415,000)
Surplus 855,315 223,603 1,968,155 238,393 378,661
C-37
Private Funding
Moreover, the Subcommittee also recommended the use of private funding to replenish
the CIP fund balance. If the FAC approves, the recommendation of the Subcommittee is
to look into working with a consultant to build a plan. The approach for this
recommendation would be a more inclusive approach by having a funding program for
the City’s various capital and beautification projects. The private funding will include a
donor wall and naming rights to the buildings, parks, and playground. Any donation
received will go directly to CIP Fund to replenish the shortfall of over $9 million.
II. Financial Implications
To assist the Subcommittee with the recommendations that are presented to FAC tonight,
Staff has prepared various scenarios to review the financial impact on the City to
undertake this project. The table below provides a summary of the scenarios that were
discussed. The details of the different scenarios are available in attachment A.
Table 5: Summary of Financial Impacts
After meeting with Subcommittee Member MacAllister and Member Yourman , Staff was
asked to prepare two additional scenarios based on the following:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project.
• Use Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund for 50% of the remaining balance
or approximately 34% of the total project cost.
• Use iBank loan for the other 50% of the remaining balance or approximately 35%
of the total project cost with a 10-years term.
• Use iBank loan for the other 50% of the remaining balance or approximately 35%
of the total project cost with a 15-years term.
Scenario 1
Financing
100%
Scenario 2
Financing
75%
Scenario 3
Financing
50%
Initial fund for Ladera Linda from CIP fund - 3,922,500 7,845,000
Average Annual payment 1,789,570 1,376,600 905,240
Use of CIP fund 16,952,700 12,823,000 8,109,400
Use of Quimby fund 943,000 943,000 943,000
Use of ARPA fund 5,410,100 4,161,600 2,739,700
Shortfall in replenishing CIP fund (10,285,600) (11,326,900) (11,957,700)
Total increase/(decrease) in fund balance (8,638,100) (9,649,400) (10,246,000)
% of increase/(decrease) in fund balance -33.92% -37.89% -40.24%
C-38
Based on the directions, Table 6 is a summary of the financial impacts on the two
additional scenarios that the financing Subcommittee requested.
Table 6: Summary of Additional Financial Impacts
Table 7 below is the revised total estimated project costs including the financing costs
for 10 years and 15 years. In summary, the financing costs for the 10-year loan is
estimated at $855,400, an increase of 5% to the original estimated project cost of $15.7
million. The annual payment for the 10-year loan is $635,540. The 15-year loan
financing costs is estimated at $1.3 million or an 8% increase to the original estimated
project cost. The annual payment for the 15-year loan is $452,000. Both options require
the use of ARPA, Quimby fund, and the CIP Fund excess reserve. The 10 years option
will reduce the CIP fund balance by approximately $8.7 million while the 15-years will
reduce CIP fund balance by almost $8.3 million. Both options in scenario 4 will leave the
CIP Fund with over $16 million in fund balance (Attachment A).
Scenario 4
Financing
35% 10-year
Scenario 4
Financing
35% 15-year
Initial fund for Ladera Linda from CIP fund 5,338,000 5,338,000
Average Annual payment 635,540 452,000
Use of CIP fund 6,355,400 6,780,000
Use of Quimby fund 943,500 943,500
Use of ARPA fund 3,908,500 3,908,500
Shortfall in replenishing CIP fund (9,493,400) (9,918,000)
Total increase/(decrease) in fund balance (8,658,900) (8,293,500)
% of increase/(decrease) in fund balance -34.00% -31.09%
C-39
Table 7: Revised Total Estimated Project Costs
CONCLUSION:
In summary, the financing Subcommittee and Director Nguyen met on April 27, 2021 to
discuss the financing options for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project.
Based on the discussion amongst Subcommittee Member Lewis, Member MacAllister,
and Member Yourman, and the additional analysis provided by Director Nguyen, the
Subcommittee recommends the following:
• Use up to 50% of the American Rescue Plan Act funding for the project.
Currently estimated at $3.9 million.
• Use any available funding from Quimby Fund for the project. Currently estimated
at $943,000.
• Use Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) Fund to fund 50% of the remaining
balance of the project. Currently estimated at use of CIP Fund is $5.3 million
• Finance $5.5 million or 35% of the total project cost with iBank for 10-years.
The Subcommittee and Staff are seeking for FAC’s feedback and recommendations on
the financing options presented tonight and direct Staff to forward the agreed upon
recommendations to the City Council.
HARD COSTS
10-years
Amount
15-years
Amount
Community Center (enclosed areas and covered areas) 5,700,000$ 5,700,000$
Sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep, etc.) 6,700,000 6,700,000
Furnishings, fixtures, equipment (FFEs)300,000 300,000
Sub-total of construction costs 12,700,000 12,700,000
Construction contigency (5%)640,000 640,000
Total estimated construction costs 13,340,000$ 13,340,000$
SOFT COSTS
Construction management (5%)640,000 640,000
Construction inspection (7.5%)950,000 950,000
Permitting (2%)250,000 250,000
Hazardous materials abatement (1%)130,000 130,000
Engineering support during construction (3%)380,000 380,000
Total estimated soft costs 2,350,000$ 2,350,000$
FINANCING COSTS
Interest 761,300 1,140,300
Annual fees 94,100 139,600
Total estimated financing costs 855,400$ 1,279,900$
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 16,545,400$ 16,969,900$
C-40
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 4:22 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Cost
Here’s one I missed.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: cjruona@cox.net <cjruona@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 3:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I read in today’s Torrance Daily Breeze that the cost of the Ladera Linda Community Center,
recently approved by the city council is expected to be $15,700,000. I expect by the time it is
built that figure will be considerably higher. It always is. The Rancho Palos Verdes budget for
fiscal year 2020‐2021 totaled $37,979,100 in expenditures. That means the projected cost of
Ladera Linda will total 41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures. This is out of line & extravagant
for a city that is supposed to take pride in following a conservative fiscal policy. The city
council will now determine how to finance this. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due
to Covid‐19 business closures this will take imagination and should be carefully scrutinized. It
C-41
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
is disappointing that RPV’s commitment to fiscal prudence has been abandon. Especially
troubling is councilman Ken Dyda’s vote in support of this effort. He is a city founder who I
thought backed fiscal responsibility. That is not possible with expensive projects like this. I
have lived in RPV for 38 years & believe that the majority of people in our city do not know
anything about Ladera Linda, much less where it is located. Accordingly, they will not visit the
site in the future & this will be an under used facility. This is an inflated cash commitment for
few residents. Finally, this is being sold as something for the east side residents since they do
not have a facility like this. The east side community is basically along Palos Verdes Drive East,
primarily between Marymount College to just beyond Miraleste Intermediate School. Ladera
Linda is just off of Palos Verdes Drive South, in the south side of our city.
C. J. Ruona
Rancho Palos Verdes
C-42
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding. May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Ann Muscat <amuscat@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:17 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding. May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Member:
It was with disappointment that we noted the Council’s approval of the Ladera Linda Park Project as presented at the
last council meeting. In our minds this represents a continued disregard of the surrounding community’s concerns
about the size of the project. We write now to ask you to please consider your fiduciary responsibility to the city very
carefully before voting to approve the budget for the project as presented.
Due to the Covid pandemic this time is particularly fraught with uncertainty for the city and is likely to result in a
revenue shortfall. Given the many financial commitments and aspirations of the city—the on‐going response to the
Portuguese Bend land slide, the desire for a new city hall, significant and growing commitments to RPVs CalPers
C-43
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
retirement program—just to name a few, it seems unwise to commit what could eventually be upwards of $20 million to
a community center project whose size and scope has been questioned from the beginning.
It is our understanding that the cost estimate provided by staff is not an all‐in cost that has been carefully priced out by
contractors. It represents instead an estimate by the architect with some costs not yet priced out at all, for example
security such as lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping etc. will be determined later by consultants to recommend what
items to include and at what cost. Thus the $15.7 million that you will be voting on is likely to represent a low end
figure. As it is $5.7 million is budgeted for the building’s cost, which for a 6,790 square foot building represents
$839/square foot, a pretty rich budget for a modest neighborhood facility. We would make the same comment about
the $6.7 million indicated for site work.
As the overall number increases it stands to reason that the pressure to rent the facility out will increase to recoup
the costs expended, which will result in the kind of traffic and congestion that many in the neighborhood have been
concerned about from the beginning.
We would ask the City Council to carefully consider the budget proposed and withhold approval until all the costs are
understood and a reasonable budget is established. And as 25 year residents of the community we would ask you to do
this understanding all of the other financial resources and commitments of the city at this time.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Ann Muscat
Jack Baldelli
C-44
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: kmc5140@aol.com <kmc5140@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Date: April 20, 2021
To: City Council Meeting
Re: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
C-45
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
My name is Kim McCarthy and I am a 8 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing
this letter to recommend that the City Council reject staff’s recommendation to spend $15.7
million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a short fall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This
project could very well place the City in a shaky financial position given the city’s higher
priority items. The highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide that is even now costing the city $1 million a year just to maintain
PV Drive South. In addition the City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan cost at a
present estimated of $25 million. Finally, of major concern is the increase in vehicle crimes
that the city is presently experiencing. These do not even take into consideration the cost
of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost
of the project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used some algorithm
to get a very rough idea for the total cost. There was never any actual breakdown for costs
for the various items listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping etc. The report
states that they will hire consultants to recommend what items to include and at what
cost. That tells you that the present cost is not the "all in" cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council establishes
a target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position of the city and
in consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without
accurate costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals of
the building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s recommendation.
Kim McCarthy
134 Seawall Road, RPV
C-46
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:34 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Letter of objection for the funding of the Ladera Linda Community Center
Attachments:Ladera Linda community center rejection letter.docx
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Lori Barr <lmu95x2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter of objection for the funding of the Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Madam or Sir,
Please find attached my letter rejecting the funding of the Ladera Linda community
center.
Thank you,
Lori Barr
3678 Vigilance Drive
C-47
,--
0 -
s ·-•-
, __
Avai lable in the App Store and Google Ploy
May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
My name is Lori Barr, and I am a 7-year resident of the Ladera Linda community in Rancho Palos
Verdes. I am writing this letter to strongly urge the City Council reject staff’s recommendation
to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a shortfall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This project could
very well place the City in a shaky financial position given the city’s higher priority items. The
highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the Portuguese Bend landslide that
is even now costing the city $1 million a year just t o maintain PV Drive South. In addition, the
City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan cost at a present estimated of $25 million. Finally,
of major concern is the increase in vehicle crimes that the city is presently experiencing. These
do not even take into consideration the cost of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost of the
project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used an algorithm to get a rough
idea for the total cost. There was never any actual breakdown for costs for the various items
listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping etc. The report states that they will hire
consultants to recommend what items to include and at what cost . That tells you that the present
cost is not the "all in" cost.
The City Council should vote AGAINST the funding of the project until the Council establishes a
target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position of the city a nd in
consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established, staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without accurate
costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals of the
building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s recommendation.
____Lori F Barr_________________________
Name
____3678 Vigilance Dr. RPV_______________
Address
C-48
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Project
Attachments:Ladera Linda Letter.docx
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Michael Tocicki <michael@premierinservices.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello
Please see attached letter.
Thank you
C-49
,--
0 -
s ·-•-
, __
Avai lable in the App Store and Google Ploy
2
Best Regards,
Michael A. Tocicki
Executive General Adjuster
PREMIER Insurance Services, LLC
p
215-620-5649
f
619-639-1115
w
premierinservices.com
NEW YORK • LOS ANGELES • MIAMI • BOSTON
No representative of Premier Insurance Services LLC (“Premier”), or any consultant retained on behalf of the insurer(s) working with “Premier”, has any authority
either to bind the insurer(s) to coverage, or to interpret, waive, or alter any of the terms, conditions, or limitations of the policy. The insurer (s) reserves the right
to make all decisions concerning coverage. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing that “Premier” communicates to you with respect to this matter constitutes any
decision of any kind with respect to any coverage of any kind or an interpretation, waiver or alteration of any policy term, condition or limitation of any insurance
policy.
C-50
May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
We, Michael & Denise Tocicki, are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. We live on
Phantom Drive. We are writing this letter to recommend that the City Council reject the
staff’s recommendation to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the
Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a shortfall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This
project could very well place the City in a desperate financial position given the city’s
higher priority items. The highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide that is even now costing the city $1 million a year just to
maintain PV Drive South. In addition the City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan
cost at a present estimated of $25 million. Finally, of major concern is the increase in
vehicle crimes that the city is presently experiencing. These do not even take into
consideration the cost of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost
of the project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used some
algorithm to get a very rough idea for the total cost. There was never any actual
breakdown for costs for the various items listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates,
landscaping etc. The report states that they will hire consultants to recommend what items
to include and at what cost. That tells you that the present cost is not the "all in" cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council
establishes a target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position
of the city and in consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without
accurate costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals of
the building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s
recommendation.
________Michael & Denise Tocicki_____________________
Name
Phantom Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
_________________________________
Address
C-51
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:34 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Construction Project
Attachments:Ladera_Linda_project.docx
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: mark dehaan <madehaan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 10:36 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Construction Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please see the attached document regarding the funding of the Ladera Linda Project.
Sincerely,
Mark DeHaan
C-52
,--
0 -
s ·-•-
, __
Avai lable in the App Store and Google Ploy
2
17 year- Ladera Linda resident
C-53
May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
My name is Mark DeHaan and I am a 17 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am
writing this letter to recommend that the City Council reject staff’s recommendation to
spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda Park.
The City is presently facing a short fall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This
project could very well place the City in a shaky financial position given the city’s higher
priority items. The highest priority being the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide that is even now costing the city $1 million a year just to
maintain PV Drive South. In addition the City is facing RPV's CALpers retirement plan
cost at a present estimated of $25 million. Finally, of major concern is the increase in
vehicle crimes that the city is presently experiencing. These do not even take into
consideration the cost of a new city hall.
What is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true
cost of the project and could ultimately approach $20 million. The architect used some
algorithm to get a very rough idea for the total cost. There was never any actual
breakdown for costs for the various items listed in security; lighting, fencing, gates,
landscaping etc. The report states that they will hire consultants to recommend what
items to include and at what cost. That tells you that the present cost is not the "all in"
cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council
establishes a target cost of the total project consistent with the present financial position
of the city and in consideration to the funding of higher priority projects.
Once the target is established staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost
breakdown for everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Without
accurate costs it's easy to anticipate the need to start "paying for itself" once it's open.
What we do not want is for the City to find itself needing to encourage frequent rentals
of the building and park by outside groups in order to pay for its upkeep after the fact.
Until these steps are taken we recommend that the Council reject staff’s
recommendation.
Mark DeHaan
Name
3511 Heroic Drive
Address
C-54
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 8:58 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Patricia Stenehjem, and I am a 47 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to recommend that the
City Council reject staff's recommendation to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda
Park.
The City is presently facing a shortfall in revenues as a result of the pandemic. This project could very well place the City
in a shaky financial position, given the City's higher priority items, such as the large expenditure required to slow the
Portuguese Bend landslide, and the ongoing maintenance of PV Drive South. In my opinion, the money earmarked for
Ladera Linda would be better spent on upgrading and improving (or adding a new) city hall.
C-55
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
What else is of concern is that the cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost of the project. There was
never any breakdown for the various items listed in security: lighting, fencing,gates, landscaping, etc. The report states
that they will hire consultants to recommend what items to include, and at what cost.
The City Council should vote against the funding of the project until the Council establishes a target cost of the total
project consistent with the present financial position of the City, and in consideration of the funding of higher priority
projects. Once the target is established, staff should be required to provide the Council with a cost breakdown for
everything to be included in this project within the target cost. Until these steps are taken, I urge the Council to reject
staff's recommendation. Without accurate costs, it's also easy to anticipate the need for the Park to start "paying for itself"
once it's open, which would likely have a detrimental impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Patricia Stenehjem
32215 Searaven Drive
C-56
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 3:03 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: May 4th City Council Meeting - Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: The Costleys <billmelandlindsey@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:38 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: May 4th City Council Meeting ‐ Ladera Linda Park Project Funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Bill Costley and I am a 20 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to recommend that the City
Council reject the staff’s recommendation to spend $15.7 million on the proposed redevelopment of the Ladera Linda
Park. The cost estimate provided by staff does not reflect the true cost of the project which will ultimately be closer to
$18‐20 million. The architect’s method to calculate costs only provided a rough idea of the total cost and there was never
any actual breakdown for costs associated with the various items listed for security, lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping,
etc. The report states that they will hire consultants to recommend what items to include and at what costs, which means
the recommended $15.7 million number is far from the total costs for this project. This is a ridiculous amount of money
C-57
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
that would be better spent on higher priority projects such as the Portuguese Bend Landslide abatement or the Civic
Center Project as opposed to a lavish community center and park that the majority of residents oppose.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Costley
Phantom Drive
C-58
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:00 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Colleen Teles <imcat58@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:57 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am sad to learn about the cost to move forward with the Ladera Linda project, a project that will do little to improve
the overall quality of life in RPV. Ladera Linda is so far away from a vast majority of residents that I believe it will be
underused, as it was in its former incarnation. There were occasional classes held there, and of course, it is used
extensively as a soccer field, but I doubt that no matter what you do to the structure, it will not be utilized.
I'd say that now is not the time to move forward with such an expensive project. I'm sure Covid had a fiscal impact on
our city; let's get our current affairs in order before committing to spending money on a project that nobody really cares
about.
Lots of new families are moving into RPV, especially the Silver Spur; Basswood, Crest areas. Not too sure about the east
side. If you must spend money, why don't we do something to improve the quality of life here in RPV? A few new
classrooms at a distant site isn't going to cut it. Follow El Segundo's lead and create a great sports center, with a pool,
C-59
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
great baseball field, soccer field, etc. Or follow Torrance's example and build something similar to Wilson Park, which is
a huge benefit to the community. RPV is really lacking as far as nice parks go.
Our city is dying, as far as amenities go. We lost our mall, the parks are average, we have no pool nor community sports
center. The residents commonly refer to our city as the place to go to die, what with all the retirement communities
being built. Why are you letting this happen?
Colleen Teles
5433 Whitefox Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
C-60
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:35 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: jdplatus <jdplatus@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please vote NO on this project! We love the idea of being a quiet, conservative community without extra traffic and
parking.
This costly project will cost us more in taxes. We don’t Need this at all. Save money, our security, and our quiet
residential
community.
Judy Platus
jdplatus@cox.net
C-61
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
live in RPV
C-62
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:04 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: klenders@cox.net <klenders@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
Please listen to your residents, WE DO NOT WANT A $15 MILLION LADERA LINDA IMPROVEMENT. We don't want it. WE
DON'T WANT IT. Nor do we want a shuttle bringing visitors to the Preserve. WE DON'T WANT IT. We don't want you
posting videos on Youtube or Instagram inviting people to come to the peninsula. They have found it just fine without
your help. We cannot accommodate them. The road is dangerous. It's moving, MOVING. It's an ACTIVE landslide. Visitors
not familiar with the area are dying; on the road, and in the water. How many more makeshift memorials will we have to
watch be erected? There isn't adequate parking. There aren't adequate sidewalks. Please come to my home and watch
C-63
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
them liter, honk, make illegal screeching u turns, park in front of "No Parking" signs, run, bike, pee in our bushes, vomit
on our curbs, etc. I'll put on a pot of coffee so you can stay awhile and watch the horror show...
Thank you for listening,
Kristen Lenders
C-64
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:28 PM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may
be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use
of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Wold <annewold@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:27 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Our appreciation goes to the fiscally-
C-65
2
sensible council members Ms. Ferraro and Mr Bradley, who have stated their position to not support
a 15+ million dollar project in a quiet neighborhood. They are following their pre-election promises to
listen to their constituents and to retain RPV’s sensible budget expenditures.
They also recognize the surrounding neighborhood traffic which would be associated with such a
large project.
How do the remaining three council members plan to properly maintain our City when over 40% of
the entire budget is going to overbuild a facility? Surely hope we would not have an emergency
requiring funds in place.
Extremely disappointing to hear the stuff coming out of our City Council these days.
Anne & Richard Wold
50 year residents of RPV
C-66
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:26 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: alfrew@cox.net <alfrew@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:26 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Councilmembers,
Please do not approve such an expensive project ... re‐look at something more reasonable.
Thank you,
Allan Frew
RPV
C-67
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 2021 8:13 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda cost
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:21 AM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I was shocked after reading the PvP watch letter about the cost of the park project. I’m sure you have read it, but reread
it again. How can you honestly commit over40% of the cities yearly revenues for a questionable and unpopular project?
This is the most alarming part of the newsletter
The Cost
C-68
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
The Torrance Daily Breeze has reported that the cost of this
project is expected to be $15,700,000. By the time it is
completed this number will be bigger than that…it always is. To
give that large number context realize that the RPV budget for
fiscal year 2020-2021 totaled $37,979,100 in
expenditures. That means the projected cost of Ladera Linda is
41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures…for the entire
city! PVP Watch believes this is out of line for a city that is
supposed to pride itself in following a conservative fiscal policy.
On May 4th the city council will determine how to finance this
extravagance. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due to
Covid-19 business closures this will take imagination and
should be carefully scrutinized.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPad
C-69
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Friday, April 30, 2021 8:32 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda cost
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: MANSOOR ALYESHMERNI <alyesh@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 7:39 AM
To: grapecon@cox.net
Cc: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>;
martycrna@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Vlaco <jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Donald Bell
<dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
It reminds me of the old adage figures don’t lie but liars do figure.
As mentioned above there are significant infrastructure needs much greater than what’s being done here at a very big
expense.
What can we do at this point? Request a meeting?
C-70
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
M. "Elie" Alyeshmerni
Alyesh@aol.com
Cell 310 922‐7852
32443 Sea Raven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
On Apr 30, 2021, at 5:43 AM, grapecon@cox.net wrote:
Cost per square foot less than George F. Canyon????? Well, I guess if you only consider building cost,
and use the roof area instead of the usable square footage, you can get to that figure ($5.08M / 13,370
square feet). But is that fair? How about using usable square footage in the denominator ($5.08M /
~6700 square feet = $760 per square foot), and now the cost per square foot is 150% of George F
Canyon. A design with a significant amount of glass, laid out in linear fashion to provide more
unnecessary ocean views, is not going to be a cost effective construction. Instead of putting in a modest
amount of glass, the city is instead putting a band aid on by adding large expensive security shutters,
which will only raise the cost further the more area of expensive glass they have to cover.
Regarding funding, how about applying ARPA funding to slide mitigation? Seems like that is in greater
need of “rescue.” Aren’t there other critical infrastructure needs, also? Our sewer, water, electricity,
and gas lines are 50+ years old…..no concerns there? How about undergrounding power lines to help
mitigate sources of wildfire? Even if there is good argument to use those funds for this park, that
doesn’t mean the city needs to spend $15.7M (or more) on this project. How about $5M‐$7M for the
project? Right size the building to 3 rooms, use more conventional construction, preserve existing large
foliage and only re‐landscape what is necessary, etc. I am sure we could have a very nice and functional
facility for that budget. And what about funding for the massive proposed Civic Center Project????
Also, the last line in Ara’s email is offensive in that it implies LL residents want nothing done: “ the
existing park grounds and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes,
and do not support an enhanced quality of life for our residents.” We are not arguing that
nothing be done. We agree a new center and improving the grounds is a good idea. We just don’t agree
that a building of the proposed size is needed or wanted by the community, nor all the amenities clearly
designed to attract more visitors from greater distances. When we point out that opening up views in no
way affects the functionality of the community center or park, we get no response….because there is no
logical counter-argument. Does every major park in RPV have to have expansive views? Why not keep
the “nestled in the trees” community feel currently at Ladera Linda?
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:21 PM
To: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; martycrna@gmail.com; CC <cc@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Vlaco
<jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong
<kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Elie Alyeshmerni <Alyesh@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda cost
So guess the cost per square foot for Ladera Linda is less than George Canyon. Even though Ladera
Linda will cost 15 million dollars more to build,So that makes it all right.
C-71
3
So we are building this with reliance of the American Rescue Plan Act and other bailouts for funding to
build this . Does Ladera Linda need to be rescued? The city will be using an incredible amount of its
reserve and resources to build something that according to the residents of RPV, we don’t want.
I really don’t understand the motivation of our city leaders for supporting this.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Date: April 29, 2021 at 2:53:17 PM PDT
To: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>, Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>, CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda cost
Mr. Foster,
The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing your concerns
regarding the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. Your
email will be provided to the City Council as part of the May 18 Staff
Report. Please note that the City Council will not be considering project
budget and financing alternatives on May 4, but rather on May 18.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight information on this project
taken from the April 6, 2021 City Council Staff Report on the City’s website
at the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id
=3900
As you may know, in the 1960s, the PVPUSD developed the project site
into the Ladera Linda Elementary school. The school operated until 1980,
when the City purchased the property and officially opened the park in
1982. From 1993 to 2011, a Montessori School leased several
classrooms on the site. Since 2011, the community center and park has
been exclusively used for park recreation purposes.
In 2013, the City Council commissioned an engineering firm to assess the
condition of all its public facilities, including Ladera Linda. That
assessment scored the Ladera Linda buildings as an “F” noting that the
following:
• Buildings/systems are at end of useful life: facing significant repair
and renovation costs
• Inefficient systems: Increased on-going utility costs and
maintenance
• Building area is larger than needed and therefore more costly to
maintain
C-72
4
• Code compliance – any renovation triggers accessibility and fire/life
safety upgrades to site and buildings
• Complex array of buildings creates nooks and crannies, numerous
blind spots and insecure site areas.
I am highlighting the above because it indicates that the existing buildings
are, among other things, essentially a financial liability for the City. To that
point, in 2016, the then-City Council proceeded to develop a master plan
for the property. Over the next few years, the project plans for the master
plan were reviewed extensively by the public including the adjacent
neighborhoods at several public workshops and meetings. The final
design was presented and accepted by the City Council in August 2019.
In terms of the community, our city prides itself on acres of protected open
space. Ladera Linda is the only park with a community center in the
eastern portion of the City and is almost 5 miles east of PVIC and 7.5
miles east of Hesse Park. There are very few City parks and no City
community centers in that part of RPV.
During public workshops and meetings with adjacent HOAs, many
residents noted that they were not inclined to drive to Hesse Park to
attend classes; they would prefer to attend classes in their local
neighborhood park. Ladera Linda is also the only City facility with a large
multi-purpose room located east of the landslide, one that could serve as
an evacuation center in case of a natural disaster.
There has recently been a comparison of the City’s estimated $15.7
million Ladera Linda project to the Rolling Hills Estates’ George F. Canyon
Nature Center project with a reported $1.7 million price tag. The April 6,
2021 Staff Report addressed this issue in depth. These are very different
projects as shown in the following staff report excerpt:
Table 7. Comparison between the George F Canyon Nature Center and
the Ladera Linda Community Center
<image001.png>
This table compares the building size, structural framed area, and
estimated costs without soft costs and contingency for both
buildings. This apples-to-apples comparison shows that the cost per
square foot of the George F. Canyon Nature Center is actually higher than
the Ladera Linda Community Center. Moreover, the Ladera Linda project
is a total rebuild of approximately 7 acres of the total 11-acre site.
In considering the breadth and scope of a City project such as Ladera
Linda, it is important to understand municipal budgeting. In simple terms,
the City’s budget is an operational plan on what is expected to be spent
during the year to deliver services to the community. That budget number
also represents the cash outflow related to the delivery of the services.
Ladera Linda is a capital project, and all capital projects are expended
over the life of the asset, not in the year or years that it was built and is
C-73
5
therefore not considered an operating expense. That said, to construct a
capital project in government, you need to understand the City’s cash
flow. At the end of March 2021, the City has a cash balance of $64.1
million in all of its funds (i.e. General Fund, CIP, Gas Tax, CDBG, Prop A,
Prop C, etc.). However, because this is a capital project, not affecting
general operations, the cost would be borne by the Capital Infrastructure
Program (CIP) Fund which has a cash balance of $25.5 million at the end
of March 2021 (the General Fund which supports services has a cash
balance of $22.8 million at the end of March 2021).
There are multiple ways the City could fund this project without impacting
operations or services. Based on the estimated project cost of $15.7
million, the City’s Finance Advisory Committee is currently working on
evaluating different financing options for this project. One option currently
being considered is using a mixture of the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) funding, Quimby Fund, CIP Fund, and financing. This option
would reduce the use of general operations funds so services are not
impacted nor taxes raised (which is not even under consideration). The
City has an estimated allocation of $7.8 million from the ARPA and just
under $1 million available from Quimby Fund.
The point in providing this information is to understand that the existing
park and community center are a valuable City asset that needs to be
maintained similar to other City assets, like roads, trails, and critical
infrastructure. If not maintained, the cost to the City may likely exceed the
estimated project cost in the long term. Lastly, the existing park grounds
and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, and do
not support an enhanced quality of life for our residents.
I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to reach out to me with any
follow-up questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
<image002.jpg>
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
C-74
6
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:21 AM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I was shocked after reading the PvP watch letter about the cost of the park project. I’m
sure you have read it, but reread it again. How can you honestly commit over40% of the
cities yearly revenues for a questionable and unpopular project?
This is the most alarming part of the newsletter
The Cost
The Torrance Daily Breeze has reported that the cost of this
project is expected to be $15,700,000. By the time it is
completed this number will be bigger than that…it always is. T
give that large number context realize that the RPV budget for
fiscal year 2020-2021 totaled $37,979,100 in
expenditures. That means the projected cost of Ladera Linda
41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures…for the entire
city! PVP Watch believes this is out of line for a city that is
supposed to pride itself in following a conservative fiscal policy
On May 4th the city council will determine how to finance this
extravagance. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due t
Covid-19 business closures this will take imagination and
should be carefully scrutinized.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPad
C-75
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Friday, April 30, 2021 8:32 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda cost
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 5:44 AM
To: 'Bill Foster' <billfost541@gmail.com>; 'bill schurmer' <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; 'Diane Mills'
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; martycrna@gmail.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; 'Jessica Vlaco' <jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey
Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; 'Amanda Wong' <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; 'Donald
Bell' <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; 'Elie Alyeshmerni' <Alyesh@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Cost per square foot less than George F. Canyon????? Well, I guess if you only consider building cost, and use the roof
area instead of the usable square footage, you can get to that figure ($5.08M / 13,370 square feet). But is that
fair? How about using usable square footage in the denominator ($5.08M / ~6700 square feet = $760 per square foot),
and now the cost per square foot is 150% of George F Canyon. A design with a significant amount of glass, laid out in
linear fashion to provide more unnecessary ocean views, is not going to be a cost effective construction. Instead of
putting in a modest amount of glass, the city is instead putting a band aid on by adding large expensive security shutters,
which will only raise the cost further the more area of expensive glass they have to cover.
C-76
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
Regarding funding, how about applying ARPA funding to slide mitigation? Seems like that is in greater need of
“rescue.” Aren’t there other critical infrastructure needs, also? Our sewer, water, electricity, and gas lines are 50+ years
old…..no concerns there? How about undergrounding power lines to help mitigate sources of wildfire? Even if there is
good argument to use those funds for this park, that doesn’t mean the city needs to spend $15.7M (or more) on this
project. How about $5M‐$7M for the project? Right size the building to 3 rooms, use more conventional construction,
preserve existing large foliage and only re‐landscape what is necessary, etc. I am sure we could have a very nice and
functional facility for that budget. And what about funding for the massive proposed Civic Center Project????
Also, the last line in Ara’s email is offensive in that it implies LL residents want nothing done: “ the existing park
grounds and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, and do not support an
enhanced quality of life for our residents.” We are not arguing that nothing be done. We agree a new center and
improving the grounds is a good idea. We just don’t agree that a building of the proposed size is needed or wanted by the
community, nor all the amenities clearly designed to attract more visitors from greater distances. When we point out that
opening up views in no way affects the functionality of the community center or park, we get no response….because there
is no logical counter-argument. Does every major park in RPV have to have expansive views? Why not keep the “nestled
in the trees” community feel currently at Ladera Linda?
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:21 PM
To: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>;
martycrna@gmail.com; CC <cc@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Vlaco <jvlaco@yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Elie
Alyeshmerni <Alyesh@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda cost
So guess the cost per square foot for Ladera Linda is less than George Canyon. Even though Ladera Linda will cost 15
million dollars more to build,So that makes it all right.
So we are building this with reliance of the American Rescue Plan Act and other bailouts for funding to build this . Does
Ladera Linda need to be rescued? The city will be using an incredible amount of its reserve and resources to build
something that according to the residents of RPV, we don’t want.
I really don’t understand the motivation of our city leaders for supporting this.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Date: April 29, 2021 at 2:53:17 PM PDT
To: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>, Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda cost
Mr. Foster,
The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing your concerns regarding the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. Your email will be provided to the
City Council as part of the May 18 Staff Report. Please note that the City Council will
C-77
3
not be considering project budget and financing alternatives on May 4, but rather on
May 18.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight information on this project taken from the
April 6, 2021 City Council Staff Report on the City’s website at the following link:
https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3900
As you may know, in the 1960s, the PVPUSD developed the project site into the Ladera
Linda Elementary school. The school operated until 1980, when the City purchased the
property and officially opened the park in 1982. From 1993 to 2011, a Montessori
School leased several classrooms on the site. Since 2011, the community center and
park has been exclusively used for park recreation purposes.
In 2013, the City Council commissioned an engineering firm to assess the condition of
all its public facilities, including Ladera Linda. That assessment scored the Ladera Linda
buildings as an “F” noting that the following:
• Buildings/systems are at end of useful life: facing significant repair and
renovation costs
• Inefficient systems: Increased on-going utility costs and maintenance
• Building area is larger than needed and therefore more costly to maintain
• Code compliance – any renovation triggers accessibility and fire/life safety
upgrades to site and buildings
• Complex array of buildings creates nooks and crannies, numerous blind spots
and insecure site areas.
I am highlighting the above because it indicates that the existing buildings are, among
other things, essentially a financial liability for the City. To that point, in 2016, the then-
City Council proceeded to develop a master plan for the property. Over the next few
years, the project plans for the master plan were reviewed extensively by the public
including the adjacent neighborhoods at several public workshops and meetings. The
final design was presented and accepted by the City Council in August 2019.
In terms of the community, our city prides itself on acres of protected open
space. Ladera Linda is the only park with a community center in the eastern portion of
the City and is almost 5 miles east of PVIC and 7.5 miles east of Hesse Park. There
are very few City parks and no City community centers in that part of RPV.
During public workshops and meetings with adjacent HOAs, many residents noted that
they were not inclined to drive to Hesse Park to attend classes; they would prefer to
attend classes in their local neighborhood park. Ladera Linda is also the only City
facility with a large multi-purpose room located east of the landslide, one that could
serve as an evacuation center in case of a natural disaster.
There has recently been a comparison of the City’s estimated $15.7 million Ladera
Linda project to the Rolling Hills Estates’ George F. Canyon Nature Center project with
a reported $1.7 million price tag. The April 6, 2021 Staff Report addressed this issue in
depth. These are very different projects as shown in the following staff report excerpt:
C-78
4
Table 7. Comparison between the George F Canyon Nature Center and the Ladera
Linda Community Center
This table compares the building size, structural framed area, and estimated costs
without soft costs and contingency for both buildings. This apples-to-apples comparison
shows that the cost per square foot of the George F. Canyon Nature Center is actually
higher than the Ladera Linda Community Center. Moreover, the Ladera Linda project is
a total rebuild of approximately 7 acres of the total 11-acre site.
In considering the breadth and scope of a City project such as Ladera Linda, it is
important to understand municipal budgeting. In simple terms, the City’s budget is an
operational plan on what is expected to be spent during the year to deliver services to
the community. That budget number also represents the cash outflow related to the
delivery of the services. Ladera Linda is a capital project, and all capital projects are
expended over the life of the asset, not in the year or years that it was built and is
therefore not considered an operating expense. That said, to construct a capital project
in government, you need to understand the City’s cash flow. At the end of March 2021,
the City has a cash balance of $64.1 million in all of its funds (i.e. General Fund, CIP,
Gas Tax, CDBG, Prop A, Prop C, etc.). However, because this is a capital project, not
affecting general operations, the cost would be borne by the Capital Infrastructure
Program (CIP) Fund which has a cash balance of $25.5 million at the end of March
2021 (the General Fund which supports services has a cash balance of $22.8 million at
the end of March 2021).
There are multiple ways the City could fund this project without impacting operations or
services. Based on the estimated project cost of $15.7 million, the City’s Finance
Advisory Committee is currently working on evaluating different financing options for this
project. One option currently being considered is using a mixture of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, Quimby Fund, CIP Fund, and financing. This option
would reduce the use of general operations funds so services are not impacted nor
taxes raised (which is not even under consideration). The City has an estimated
allocation of $7.8 million from the ARPA and just under $1 million available from Quimby
Fund.
The point in providing this information is to understand that the existing park and
community center are a valuable City asset that needs to be maintained similar to other
City assets, like roads, trails, and critical infrastructure. If not maintained, the cost to the
City may likely exceed the estimated project cost in the long term. Lastly, the existing
park grounds and building are a poor representation of Rancho Palos Verdes, and do
not support an enhanced quality of life for our residents.
C-79
George F Canyon Ladera Linda
Building
Structural framed area
Estimated costs w/out soft costs and contingency $
Cost per ft2 $
Nature Center Community Center
1,750
3 ,355
1 ,694,376 $
505 $
6,790
13,720
5 ,080,000
370
5
I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to reach out to me with any follow-up
questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:21 AM
To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: martycrna@gmail.com
Subject: Ladera Linda cost
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
C-80
AD
,
0 -.
"
~ GETITON
JI"" Google Play
6
I was shocked after reading the PvP watch letter about the cost of the park project. I’m sure you have
read it, but reread it again. How can you honestly commit over40% of the cities yearly revenues for a
questionable and unpopular project?
This is the most alarming part of the newsletter
The Cost
The Torrance Daily Breeze has reported that the cost of this
project is expected to be $15,700,000. By the time it is
completed this number will be bigger than that…it always is. To
give that large number context realize that the RPV budget for
fiscal year 2020-2021 totaled $37,979,100 in
expenditures. That means the projected cost of Ladera Linda is
41.4% of this fiscal year’s expenditures…for the entire
city! PVP Watch believes this is out of line for a city that is
supposed to pride itself in following a conservative fiscal policy.
On May 4th the city council will determine how to finance this
extravagance. With the recent reduction in tax revenues due to
Covid-19 business closures this will take imagination and
should be carefully scrutinized.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPad
C-81
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 11:21 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Traffic signal
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may
be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use
of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 10:19 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Traffic signal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
C-82
2
If you are spending millions(where is the money coming from?) on the Ladera Linda Park surely you
can install a traffic signal so drivers don’t have to wait ten minutes to turn left onto PV south. Just a
travesty for residents!
Irene and Paul Henrikson
32404 Searaven Dr
C-83
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 11:20 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: WHAT TO DO WITH LADERA LINDA?
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: rolo15@aol.com <rolo15@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 10:29 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; rolo15@aol.com
Subject: WHAT TO DO WITH LADERA LINDA?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To: RPV City Council: May 2, 2021
This is to state my opposition to the proposed development at Ladera Linda.
If something needs to be done with Ladera Linda piece of land, make it a
grassy area with a couple of teeter-totters that kids could enjoy and perhaps
an obstacle course for skate boarding teens. If there is a good view, we can
enjoy it without tourists’ presence.
C-84
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
Palos Verdes Peninsula’s charm depends on being a quiet out-of-the -way
village on the edge of a metropolis, not readily accessible or inviting. We are
happy as we are. Local popular meetings rarely exceed fifty people and are
easily accommodated by the existing conference rooms at the library or
Hesse Park. There is no need for a Palos Verdes Tajh Mahal with more
auditoriums and numerous bathrooms to support some non-existent crowds.
Let us not build something that will need merchandising to tourist trade to
justify its existence.
I am especially upset at Councilman Dyda’s support of the project. He
promised low-density land use and minimum taxes when he was a member
of the first city council in 1973. The fifteen million cost of the project (sure to
grow as project costs do), and perhaps twice as much if paid by a bond,
works out close to at least $400 for every man, woman, and child on RPV.
Let us remember Tomas Paine wisdom: ”Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one”.
Spending peoples’ money without their support is surely not the “best state”.
Roland Ilsen
6847 Abbottswood Dr.
C-85
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:53 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Barry Cossette <BarryBJC007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:46 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
As a 23-year RPV resident now retired, I fail to see the necessity for such a large facility in an area not designed
to handle the influx of people. We have already seen the mess the Sunday hikers from all over LA County are
making in our traffic and neighborhoods; this will add more messed up neighborhoods to the list.
Barry Cossette
Armaga Spring Rd
C-86
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:51 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Susan's Email <rpvbeckman@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 5:29 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
City Council Members,
We have lived in RPV for over 40 years in the PV Drive South area. We strongly oppose the dollar amount and the size
of the proposed Ladera Linda project. While we do not live in the immediate neighborhood we feel this project is not
good for those neighbors. The increased traffic and pollution alone will be unacceptable.
We hope that you will reconsider your vote to build the project as proposed at this time.
John and Susan Beckman
C-87
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
1 Packet Road
RPV, Ca
C-88
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda project.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Greg Teles <docteles@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:54 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
In this climate of COVID and stressful conditions, I strongly disagree with going forward with this exorbitant project.
In my opinion, this is reckless regard to fiscal responsibility. This needs to stop now. Going forward with this will hurt
our city.
I strongly suggest you vote NO on this moving forward.
C-89
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
‐‐
Thank you.
Greg Teles
All South Bay Footcare
23365 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 101
Torrance, CA 90505
310‐326‐0202
C-90
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Please vote no on the Ladera Linda Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: George Walker <george@walker‐g.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:01 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please vote no on the Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Council Members
I am very concerned that the Ladera Linda project is so expensive and is being forced upon the
neighbors in the area against their will.
Please vote no when this is considered on May 18.
C-91
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
George A Walker
6035 Ocean Terrace Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
george@walker‐g.com
310‐990‐9003
C-92
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Please vote “No” Ladera Linda center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may
be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use
of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: drgskin <drgskin@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:26 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please vote “No” Ladera Linda center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV council men,
C-93
2
After careful consideration, we would like to voice our strong opposition to Ladera Linda community
center project. We do not want our city to over spend on facility we don’t need or want. We also don’t
want increased traffic or crime to the city we love. We don’t live too close but near there (in PVE) but
can definitely use the facility. However, we don’t want you guys to over build and then hike up tax to
us or our children. We have enough public amenities to use and enjoy already.
Thank you very much for listening and vote according to your constituents. Thank you!
Mr. AHo and SChiu
C-94
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:52 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may
be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use
of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Marckx <jmarckx@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:54 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
This expenditure is not a good use of city funds.
C-95
2
Why not update the restrooms and provide some overdue maintenance.
Thanks for being our city council.
John Marckx
C-96
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:51 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: KENNETH DAPONTE <knjlastmile@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:55 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council Member-This is to request that the proposed massive expenditure for the
unwanted and unneeded Center is not made.
This money is better spent for improving and expanding existing recreational
projects--trail additions and improvements, more playgrounds, etc. --that benefit
RPV residents. rather than the thousands of greater LA visitors who are slowly
overwhelming the current recreational facilities we residents used to be able to enjoy
without larger and larger crowds the internet has attracted. I personally don't even try to
C-97
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
use the Preserve trails on Crenshaw anymore after being being rundown by mountain
bike riders 3 times. Check it out on a weekend when that area is jampacked with non-
RPV/Peninsula visitors trashing the place.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Dr. Ken Daponte--50- year RPV resident
C-98
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:53 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Linda Cavette <lkcavette@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:39 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please do not spend this kind of money on the Ladera Linda Community Center. The buildings so far
out of touch with the rest of RPV is just not rational. Over $15 million of tax payers money is just
useless to the rest of the RPV community. Its too far out of the main part of RPV for this kind of
expenditure. Yes, build the playing fields, but reduce that price on the extravagant buildings.
I'd rather see you spend on the new City Hall buildings. I am pretty sure you are ignoring the survey
we all took time to send to you.
Linda Cavette, Realtor ®
310-722-7550 cell
Coldwell Banker Realty
C-99
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
DRE #01294734
LKCavette@aol.com email
LindaCavette.com website
Named in the Top 1,000 Realtors USA NATIONALLY, Honored by NRT LLC,
management and operations of Coldwell Banker®, Sotheby's International
Realty®, The Corcoran Group®, ZipRealty®, Climb Real Estate, Century 21.
C-100
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Chuck's Gmail <chuck.agnew@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 3:24 PM
To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Parks <Parks@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>;
Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Matt
Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please approve the Ladera Linda Community Center.
I have play paddle tennis there twice per week for over 31 years.
C-101
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
We use to hold neighborhood dinner dances, children’s birthday parties,
Christmas functions, Halloween fun houses, neighborhood block parties,
square dancing, and etcetera at our Community Center. With proper
improvements we can do it again.
It certainly will increase our property values, and our property taxes.
Our neighborhood used to have annual dinner dances.
We don’t any more partly because the price has become prohibitive. With a
modern Community Room that facility could become an attractive low cost
option.
It presently is a ghost town. Leaving in its present condition is unthinkable.
I agree that the cost is too high, but we have been over ten years in the
planning, and starting over isn’t an option.
A combination of pay for it now and finance the rest with low interest rates is
the answer.
Charles Agnew
32261 Phantom Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
cvagnew@cox.net
chuck.agnew@gmail.com
(310) 377 0290
C-102
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: NO to Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Jessica Feldman <jessyfeldm@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 10:55 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: NO to Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV representatives,
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Ladera Linda community center project. I read Herb Stark's
article and completely agree with him.
I do not want our city to overspend on a facility! We need to budget our resources more carefully and not
burden us with higher taxes! I don't mind paying taxes, but I want the funds to be used judiciously and get the
most bang for our buck (like education). This facility proposal is over the top and does not reflect our
community needs/budget and the practicalities Mr. Stark detail are scary!
C-103
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
Thank you very much for listening and please vote NO. Thank you!
Jessica Feldman
4212 Miraleste Dr., RPV
C-104
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Marty Dodell <mdodell@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 9:32 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To RPV City Council members,
I write to urge a NO vote on the Ladera Linda project especially in light of a $15,000,000 price tag. I think it a huge
investment that will provide services for a relatively small part of the City remotely sited as it is.
Martin Dodell
48 year resident of RPV
C-105
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 7:50 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda Community Center vote NO
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: mozawa@cox.net <mozawa@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 8:50 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center vote NO
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please vote NO on the Ladera Linda Community Center. The cost is too high. Thank you.
Michael Ozawa
5234 Valley View Road
Michael Ozawa
mozawa@cox.net
(213) 705‐9339
C-106
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 9:44 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may
be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use
of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-
19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some
employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please
schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted
directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our
response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Levine <lisalevine2@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 9:39 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: info@pvpwatch.com
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello City Council,
C-107
2
I vote “NO” to the Ladera Linda Community Project.
It sounds like the neighbors are not in favor of this and their opinions should count.
Lisa Levine
RPV
C-108
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2021 10:43 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 10:43 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: lisalevine2@icloud.com; Critelli, Robert C III <Robert.C.Critelli@morganstanley.com>; johnrsato@gmail.com;
c.robert.chow@gmail.com; myang@orrick.com; debbie.schneider@balimgmt.com
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please don’t waste RPV funds on a facility at Ladera Linda when there are many more important priorities. There is
nothing at Ladera Linda to attract visitors other than some trails in the hills. Improving the Ocean cliff areas where visitors
flock daily is a much better use of City recreational funds.
Ocean Front Estates
We have been waiting for the City to remove the acacia bushes along PV Drive in OFE for over one year (they represent
a safety and fire hazard). We have also been waiting for the City to institute “permit parking only” at OFE (passed by the
Safety Committee in February).
C-109
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
If the council really wants to direct visitors to parking that will not impact residents why don’t you pave the two parking lots
at the Interpretive Center and improve the signage.
Unfortunately, we at Ocean Front Estates, feel that the City is not responsive to our requests and needs. Our residents
pay over $5MM per year in property taxes and get very little back from the City; especially when it comes to safety and
maintenance issues. We at OFE spend $300k/year to keep our residents safe – a job which the Sheriff should be doing
(we almost never see a Sheriff’s vehicle in our neighborhood). Please HELP.
Let’s take care of what we have before we waste money on a facility that nobody wants!
Larry Carapellotti
VP – OFE/HOA
larryc3@cox.net
Cell: 818-519-8520
C-110
1
Trang Nguyen
From:Megan Barnes
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:35 AM
To:Trang Nguyen
Cc:Karina Banales
Subject:FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID‐19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk‐ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: Sue Soldoff <drsue@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:32 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
We both vote NO on the overpriced Ladera Linda project.
Susan Soldoff
Stephen Soldoff
Sue & Steve Soldoff
3414 Coolheights Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, USA
drsue@cox.net * ssoldoff@cox.net
C-111
,...,._r.:!\ Connect wllh t he City from your phone or tobletl
0 -,. __
•-
o--Avai lable In the App Store and Google Ploy
~ GETITON
I""• Google Play
2
(310) 740‐2465 * (310) 740‐2455
C-112